I 


.jfcAi-3Li^ilH^.i  u 


f\\^ 


VV 


^x  -^ 


; 

# 

(^ 

1 

.2 

^ 

1 

♦^ 

IS 

^       1^ 

Q- 

V 

*w 

S?5          ^ 

o 

«    i 

CD 

C 

^        o 

bO 

^        t< 

< 

^     8 

13 

IS 

Iz; 

E 

I 

1  i 

^      >       1 

•^        PS 

J? 

^        P4 

u. 

i^    =^.   ^     1 

<<** 

S 

O 

^ 

•^ 

*a 

>« 

(U 

^ 

"c 

>i 

a> 

^ 

^ 

CL 

SCO 


m 


A 

BiSCOUPvSE 


O  N 


A     C     T     S     ii.    42. 

in  which  the  Practice  of  owning  the  Covenant 
is  examined  : — The  Arguments  which  have  been 
ufed  in  its  Favour  are  particularly  confidered  :  and 
Reafons  offered  for  its  Abolition. 


By     G  Y  P  R  I  a  N  -S  T  R  O  N  G,    A,  M. 

Pastor  of  the   first  Church   in  Chatham. 


To  the  Law  and  to  the  Testimony.  Isaiah. 

Whj  callj/e  me.  Lord,  Lord,  and  do  not  the  things  'which  I  fay  f 

Jesus  Christ. 


THE    SECOND    EDITION. 


HARTFORD: 
PRINTED  BY  HUDSON  AND  GOODWIN. 

iJ.DCC.XCI. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


THE  covfideratimSi  which  have  induced  the  author  of 
this  difcourje  to  forward  afecond  imprejfioriy  are  the 
following^  viz.  The  frequent  enquiry  which  has  been 
Znadefor  it^ — there  being  none  of  the  former  imprejfion  to 
le  obtained — the  follicitation  of  a  nmnber  of  gentlemen^ 
•whofe  ■  opinions  he  ejleems,  together  with  a  dejire,  that  it 
may  be  generally ^  i^ffal* 

"  -  In  this  edition y  /^<?  ftyle  is  in  many  inji antes  corre^ed, 
mdfome  new  thoughts  added.  Conftdering  the  more  refin- 
ed tajie  of  the  prcfent  day,  it  may  be  thought,  that  further 
correclions  were  tiecejfary.  The  author  is  fenfible,  that 
there  is  fufficient  room  for  corrections  ;  but  as  he  thinks 
his  meaning  is  fufficiently  clear,  as  it  now  is,  he  fubmits 
it  to  a  candid  perufaL 


A   DISCOURSE,    &c. 


ACTS      ii.  42. 

And  they  continued^  Jledfajlly^  in  the  Apojiles  doclrine  ani 
fellow/hipy  and  in  breaking  of  bread  and  in  prayers. 

IN  the  preceeding  part  of  this  chapter,  we  have  an 
account  of  the  moft  extraordinary  and  remarkable 
out-pouring  of  the  fpirit  of  God,  and  fuch  an  inftance 
of  divine  power  attending  the  difpenfation  of  truth,  as, 
perhaps,  was  never  known  from  the  apoftles  days  down 
to  the  prefent  period  of  time.  There  was  a  great  mul- 
titude colledled  around  the  Apoftles,  from  different 
quarters,  and,  doubtlefs,  for  very  different  purpofes  : 
fome,  probably,  out  of  mere  curiofity,  to  hear  what 
thofe  "  bablers"  would  fay  :  others  to  mock  and  ridi- 
cule them  ;  for  we  are  informed  that  fome  faid  -'  thefe 
men  are  full  of  new  wine  :"  And  it  is  not  unreafon- 
able  tofuppofe  that  fome  might  come  to  be  inflrudled 
into  that  fyftem  of  truths,  which  occalioned  fo  much 
noife  and  tumult  at  that  time.  However,  notwith- 
ftanding  their  views  and  defigns  v.ere  fo  various,  we 
find  that  divine  truth  was  attended  with  fuch  power, 
that  a  great  part  of  them  "  were  pricked  to  the  heart, 
and  faid  unto  Peter  and  the  reft  of  the  Apoflles,  men 
and  brethren,  what  fhall  we  do  ?"  Peter  immediate- 
ly replied,  "  repent  and  be  baptifed  in  the  name  of 
Jefus  Chrift,  for  the  remiflion  of  fms."    Divine  power 


[       4       ] 

llill  attended  the  preaching  of  Peter  ;  for  we  find,  that 
many  received  his  words  gladly,  and  were  baptifed  ; 
and  the  number  was  no  lefs  than  about  three  tl.oafand« 
**  And  the  lame  day  there  were  added  unto  them  a- 
bout  three  thoufand  fouls.'* 

We  have  a  further  account  of  thofe  converts  in  our 
text,  and  the  words  following.  And  by  the  account 
the  facred  hiftorian  gives  us,  it  is  evident  they  were 
touched  to  fome  purpofe  ;  their  profefnon  was  not 
merely  nominal,  or  the  effed  of  a  lifclefs  flame  which 
the  apollle  had  blown  up  in  their  mmds  ;  for  we  are 
afTurcd,  that  they  continued  to  feel  the  force  of  divine 
truth,  and  to  adt  up  to  the  character  of  real  chriifians. 
They  .continued,  as  tbrs  ipofile  informs  us  in  our  text, 
ftidfiijfiy  in  theapolllcs  do^lnne  z.\\<\feilo%i'fljip  ;  that  is', 
they  believed  the  fame  things  with  the  apoftles,  and 
fo  had  fellowlliip  with  tiiern.  in  all  the  facred  doiitrines 
of  Chriilianity:  And  thofe  converts  who  were  bap- 
tifed, not  only  believed  the  fame  things,  but  they  al fb 
lived  m  the  practice  of  the  fame  duties  which  the  apof- 
tles  obferved';  for  it  is  faid,  that  they  continued  with 
them  Jiedfojtly,  in  breaking  of  Ire  ad  and  in  prayerSy  as 
well  as  in  do^rine.  By  knakm^  of  bread  with  the  apof- 
tles,  we  are  undoubtedly  to  underftand,  that  they  con- 
tinued to  celebrate  with  them  the  memorial  of  Chrift's 
death  ;  that  they  lived  in  the  oblervation  of  that  ordi- 
nance and  infVitution.  Expoiitors  thus  underfland  it. 
It  cannot  be  underftood  to  mean,  that  they  held  up 
civil  comm.union  with  the  apoftles,  that  is,  jointly  par- 
took of  each  other's  temporal  fubfiance  ;  for  the  apof- 
tie  mentions  this  afterwards  :  and  befides,  the  apoflle 
coniiders  this  as  a  religious  r//f  ;  placing  it  among 
their  religious  exercifes,  fuch  as  having  fellowfhip  with 
them  in  doRrine,  and  continuing  with  them  m -prayers. 
And  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  elfewherc 
lignihed,  by  breaking  of  bread  i  as  in  A6ls  xx.  7.  The 
hreaking  of  breads  therefore,  mull:  have  an  immediate  re- 
ference to  the  facrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.     Anci 


[      5      ] 

it  is  worthy  of  our  particular  obfervation,  that  the 
apollle  mentions  the  breaking  of  bread,  or  attending  up^ 
pn  the  memorial  of  Chrift's  death,  as  what  thole  who 
were  baptiCed  united  in  ;  not  as  vj\\diX.fonie  did,  but  as  a 
thing  that  was  cjommon  to  them  all.  It  at  Icaft  in- 
cludes all  the  adults.  There  is  nothing  faid  which 
gives  us  fhe  leaft  reafbn  to  conclude,  that  there  w^asa- 
ny  diftindion  refpedliing  the  inftitution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  more  than  refpecting  do^lrine  and  prayers. 

The  words,  therefore,  may  lead  us  to  make  the  foU 
lowing  obfervation,  viz.  ihat  thoje  adults  whom  the 
apojlles  baptifedy  iirre  confidered  as  comraunicants,  and  as 
being  holden  to  an  attendance  upon  all  go/pel  inftiiutions^ 
the  Lord' s  Supper  not  excepted. 

If  tlie  thr€c  thoufand,  who  were  baptifed  on  the  day 
of  penticoft,  or  the  adults  included  in  that  number, 
were  confidered  and  viewed  as  communicants  at 
thrift's  table,  we  have  prefumptive  evidence,  at  leaft, 
that  it  was  their  common  practice,  when  they  ad- 
jniniftered  baptifm  to  adults,  to  receive  and  conlider 
jhem  as  communicants  at  the  table  of  the  Lord. 

But  this  may  further  appear,  in  the  courfe  of  the 
enfuing  enquiries.  What  is  propofed  in  further  dil- 
jcourfing  from  thef^  words^  is. 

First,  To  (how,  that  thofe adults  who  had  the  pri- 
vilege of  baptifm  for  themfeives  or  their  feed,  in  the 
days  of  the  apoftles,  were  confidered  as  communicants, 
and  as  being  equally  holden  to  an  attendance  upon  the 
facrament  of  the  |-,ord's  Supper,  as  upon  any  other 
divine  inflitution. 

Secondly,  More  particularly  to  enquire,  whether 
the  practice  of  owning  the  covenant,  as  it  is  called, 
which  admits  perfons  to  the  privilege  of  baptifm,  who 
profeffedly  and  pradically  with-hold  their  attendance 
£)n  the  facrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  be  fcriptural 
and  fo  to  be  indulged. 

Under  this  particular  it  is  propofed  to  confider  e- 
very  thing  which  is  oifered  in  favor  of  the  practice  of 


C      6      ] 

owning  the  covenant,  aiid  to  fuggell  reafons  for  its 
jexclulion. 

In  difcouriing  upon  the  points  now  propofed,  I 

ihall  treat  the  -practice  of  owning  the  covenant  with  free- 
dom and  plainnefs,  yet  nothing  perfonal  is  intended, 
refpedling  thofe  who  arc  friendly  to  it. 

I  hope  there  are  none  fo  fet  in  any  particular 
fcheme,  as  to  be  unwilling  it  fliould  come  under  a  fe- 
rious  examination ;  or,  to  give  it  up,  if  it  be  not  founded 
on  the  facred  oracles  of  the  living  God.  I  would  re- 
qiieft,  that  every  one  would  diveft  his  mind  of  all  pre- 
judice, and  be  difpofed  to  receive  light,  whether  it  may- 
be in  favor  of,  or  in  oppofition  to  former  fentiments. 
Cafting  away  all  wrath  3.nd  Jlrifey  and  laying  aiide  all 
fLiperfiuity  of  naughtinefs,  be  difpofed  to  receive  with 
rtiecknefs  the  ingtafted  word,  which  is  able  to  mak^ 
you  Wife  unto  falvation.     I  will  now  proceed, 

First,  To  attempt  to  (how,  that  thofe  adults  who 
had  the  privilege  of  bctptifiti  for  themfelves  or  their 
feed,  in  the  4ays  of  the  apoftles,  were  confidered  as 
commamicants,  and  as  being  equally  holden  to  an  at- 
tendance upon  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  upon  any  other 
divine  inftitution* 

I  do  not  fuppofe,  neither  would  I  be  underflood  to 
fay,  that  an  attendance  upon  the  inftitution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  or  any  ol\itv  particular  inftituted  duty, 
is  the  term  or  qualification  for  baptifm  -,  but  an  ob- 
fervation  of  and  an  attendance  upon  <?// public  inflitu-: 
ted  duties  is  the  term..  Y/hat  is  meant  is,  that  the 
apoftlcs  vicv/ed  and  confidered  thofe  adults  whom 
they  baptifed,  eamUy  holden  to  obferve  all  the  duties 
and  inftitutions  of  the  Ghrif^ian  religion.  One  duty 
or  inftitution  was  not  difpenfed  with  rather  than  ano- 
ther. And  I  can  fee  no  room  to  doubt  of  this,  fromi 
any  thing  faid  in  the  writings  of  the  apoftles.  The 
facred  fcriptures,giveno  intimation  of  a  different  prac- 
tice, in  tht!  days  of  the  apoftles  ;  but  aflbrd  rhuch  po- 
iitive  evidence,  that  they  did  confider  thofe  whom  they 


t      7   •  ] 

baptlfed,  as  being  equally  holden  to  walk  togcthef  iri 
an  attendance  upon  all  inftituted  duties.  This  not 
only  appears  clear  to  nae,  but  fomc,  who  have  been 
zealous  advocates  for  a  contrary  practice,  have  declar- 
ed, that  it  is  fo  evident  to  them  as  not  to  admit  of  a 
doubt.  One  in  particular,  when  writing  in  vindica- 
tion of  that  pradlice  which  tolerates  perfons  in  the 
omiflion  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  fays,  concerning  that 
ordinance  and  inlHtution,  "  This  was  an  ordinance 
appointed  for  the  whole  body  of  Chrift'svifible  church, 
who  profefled  the  chriftian  faith  :  and  accordingly, 
tbey  thus  pra^ijed  in  the  apoftles  days  ;  as  all  the  difci- 
ples  atte7ided  upon  this  memorial."^  This  conceilion,- 
in  one  who  is  an  advocate  for  a  contrary  pradlice,  is 
fomevvhat  remarkable;  and  is  not  unfavorable,  to  what 
is  now  fuppofed,  viz.  That  the  apoftles  wereftrangers 
to  the  pr-adice  of  adminiftering  baptifm,  to  fuch  as 
live  in  the  negledt  of  plain  gofpel  inftitutions. 

But  we  will  proceed  to  a  more  particular  cOnfidcra- 
tion  of  thepradlice  of  the  apoftes,  to  fee  whether  it  be 
not  evident,  that  they  conlidered  all  the  adults  whom 
they  baptifed,  as  holden  to  an  attendance  upon  all  in- 
ftituted  duties  of  the  covenant,  the  Lord's  Supper  not 
excepted. t  And  the  following  things  afford  fatisfy- 
ing  evidence,  that  the  apoftles  adminiftcred  baptifm  to 
no  adults  perfonally,  or  their  feed,  excepting  fuch  as 
they  confidered  as  communicants,  or  holden  to  an  at- 
tendance upon  all  inftitutions,  without  excepting  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

*  Ely's  Sertn,  on  Gal.  ili.  27.     p.  34. 

+  It  is  taken  for  granted  here, and  throagh  this  difcourfe,  that  the  (arae  qua- 
lifications are  rcquifite  in  an  adult,  for  the  dedication  of  his  feed  in  baptifm, 
as  for  the  dedication  of  himfelf.  If  it  were  ncceffary  in  the  apoftles  days,  for 
an  adult  to  engage  to  attend  upon  all  infiitnted  duties  in  order  to  bis  czvn  bap- 
tifm, it  muft  have  been  neceffary  to  the  dedication  olhisf^ed.  This,  it  is  fup- 
pofed, no  OHC  will  difpirte. 


•I      -8      -] 

1.  The  nature  and  import  of  the  commiffion,  which 
our  Lord  gave  his  apoftles,  leads  us  to  conclude, 
that  they  confidercd  all  adults  whom  they  bap- 
tifcd,  as  holden  to  the  pradlice  of  all  Chriftiah 
duties. 
We  hav£  the  higheil  rcafon  to  fuppofe,  the  apoftles 
aited  up  to  the  fpirit  and  meaning  of  their  commiilion. 
And  the  comnliffion  which  Chrift  gave  them,  made  it 
incumbent:  on  them  to  i'nfift  upon  it,  that  all  whom 
•they  fliould  baptifc,  fhould  attend  upon  all  inftituted 
duties.  The  commiflion  which  Chrift  gave  his  apof- 
tles, is  cxpreiTed  in  thcfe  words  ;  "Go  ye,  therefore, 
and  teach  all  nations,  baptiiing  them  in  the  rtame  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ; — 
teaching  them  to  objerve  all  things  zuhatfoever  I  haz:e 
commanded  you/'*  This  commifflon  made  it  incum- 
bent on  the  apoftles,  firft  to  teach,  and  then  to  bap- 
tife  :  But  this  is  not  all  ;  for,-  in  it  they  were  ftridtly 
charged.to  inftft  upon  it^  that  all  thofe  whom  they 
fhould  thus  teach  and  baptife,  ftiould  obfcrvc  allthingSy 
that  is,  all  the  duties  which  Chrift  had  commanded 
them.— Andi  was  not  the  Lord's  Supper  one  duty 
which  Chrift  had  juft  inftituted  and  made  incumbent 
on  his  difciples  ?  Was  not  this  commanded  duty, 
therefore,  one  thing  that  they  were  to  inftft  uponftiould 
be  obferved,  by  thofe  whom  they  ftiould  baptife  ?  This 
-commiftion  will  no  more  admit  of  tolerating  perfons 
in  a  profciTed  and  prad:ical  Omiflionof  the  inftitution 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  than  in  the  negleflof  any  other 
inftitution. — It  is  as  inconftftent  with  the  plain  mean- 
ing and  import  of  the  commiftion,  to  tolerate  thofe, 
who  have  the  privilege  of  baptifm,  in  a  negledl  of  the 
facrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  in  an  omiftion  of 
any  other  duty.  And,  as  v  e  have  reafon  to  believe 
the  apoftles. adted  up  to  the  fpirk  of  their  commiftion, 
fo  wc  muft  conclude,  that  thofe  adults,  who  had  th« 

*  Matt,  xxviii.  13.  20, 


[      9      ] 

privilege  of  baptifm  granted  them  by  the  apoflles, 
were  viewed  and  confidcred  as  equally  holden  to  an 
attendance  upon  thefacrament  of  the  Lord'sSupper,as 
upon  any  other  inftituted  duty.  If  we  are  to  make 
up  a  judgment  concerning  the  pradice  of  the  apdftles 
by  the  commillion  they  received  from  Chrift,  wemult 
conclude,  that  their  difciples  or  baptifcd  adults  were 
holden  and  bound  to  attend  upon  all  inflituted  duties, 
without  excepting  the  inflituted  memorial  of  Chrift's 
death.  Again, 

II.  The  account  given  us  of  the  tranJa£lions  of  the 
apoftles,  afibrds  another  reafon  for  concluding, 
that  they  conlidered  the  adults  to  whom  they  ad- 
miniftered  baptifm,  as  bound  to  attend  upon  all 
ihftituted  duties,  without  excepting  theinftituted 
memorial  of  Chrift's  death. 
We  have  no  reafon  to  think,  from  any  thing  the  a- 
|Doft:les  faid  or  tranfacfled^that  fome  adults  who  enjoyed 
the  privilege  of  baptifm,  were  confidcred  als  commu- 
nicants and  others  were  not  ;  or,  that  fome  did  attend 
upon  the  inflituted  memorial   of  Chrifl's  death,  and 
others  were  tolerated  in  a  negledl  or  omiflion  of  that 
inflitution.     We  may  as  loon  find  fufhcicnt  evidence 
to  conclude,  that  fome  did  not  continue  fledfaft  in  the 
apoftles  do^riney  and  in  prayers,  ajjd  were  tolerated  iri 
fuch  a  neglecft  or  omiffion,  as  that  they  were  tolerated 
and  indulged  in  a   neglecl:   of  the  inftitution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.     It  is  very  poflible,  that  fome  might 
but  feldom   have  an  opportunity  of  attending   upon 
that  memorial,  as  well  Us  upon  other  inftituted  duties  ; 
yet,  as  often  as  they   had  opportunity  to  do   it,  they 
were  equally  under  obligations  to   attend  upon  ic  as: 
upon  other  duties  of  the  covenant  ;  at  leaft  tfjere  is  no 
reafon  for  any  other  conclufion,  cither  from  what  the 
apoftles  faid,  or  the  account  we  have  of  their  tfanfac- 
tions.     But,  we  have  much  pofitive  evidence,  that  all 
baptifed  adults,  were  bound  to  attend  upon  the  memo-. 
B 


[         lO         ] 

rial  of  Chrift's  deafh,  as  well  as  all  other  covenant  du- 
ties. The  apoftles,  in  all  their  letters  and  tranfadions, 
treated  all  their  difciples  as  being  in  one  ftanding,  and 
as  united  in  one  body  ; — -having o«(f  faith,  o//^  Lord,  and 
one  baptifm.  There  is  not  the  leaft  intimation  of  any 
diftindtion  among  them  ;  efpccially,  it  is  no  where  in- 
timated, that  fome  were  communicants  at  the  Lord's 
table  and  others  were  not. — And  does  it,  my  hearer.;, 
look  probable,  that  there  was  this  diftindion  fincc 
there  is  no  mention  made  of  it  ?  Why  ihould  we  think 
there  was  this  difference  or  diftindion,  when  there  is 
no  intimation  of  it  t  It  is  a  conclufive  argument  that 
there  was  no  fuch  diftindtion  known  to  the  apoftles, 
fince  it  is  no  where  intimated  in  any  of  their  waitings 
or  tranfaclions.  I  am  fcnfible,  that  as  to  fome,  fuch 
as  the  Eunuchy  Cornelius^  and  others,  it  is  not  faid,  ex- 
plicitly, that  they  were  bound  to  attend  upon  the 
Lord's  Supper  ;  but  can  we  from  thence  conclude,' 
that  they  were  not  holden  to  an  attendance  upon  it, 
v/henever  they  fhould  have  opportunity  }  If  we  may, 
M'e  may  alfo  conclude,  that  they  were  not  holden  to  an 
attendance  upon  07ie  duty  of  the  covenant ; '  for  no  one 
duty  is  particularized.  There  is  as  much  mention 
made  of  the  inititution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  of  any 
other  inititution  ;  as  of  do^rine  or  prayers.  If  it  be  a 
fufricient  reafon  to  6bnclude,  that  the  Eunuch^  CorneliuSy 
or  others,  were  not  conlidered  as  holden  to  the  obfer- 
vationof  the  inftitution  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  often 
as  they  fhould  have  opportunity,  becaufe  it  is  not  par- 
ticularly mentioned.  Me  muft  for  the  fame  reafon  con- 
clude they  were  not  holden  to  pradlife  any  Chriftian 
duty,  bccaufe  no  one  is  mentioned.  The  account  is 
left  in  fuch  a  manner  as  leads  us  to  conclude,  that  there 
was  no  diftinction  thought  of  among  Chriftian  duties; 
either  thofe  perfons  muft  be  conftdcred  as  holden  to 
all.,  or  to  the  obfervation  of  no  inftituted  duty  of  the 
covenant. 

Furthermore,  the  pofitive  evidence  that  there  was 


[    I.    J 

no  diftindion  among  chriiiian  duties,  made  or  allow- 
ed of  by  the  apoftles  will  be  incrcafed,  if  it  be  con- 
fidered,  that  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
mentioned  as  what  was  common  to  the  difciples,  \n  the 
apoftles  days.  When  that  memorial  was  attended  up- 
on, it  is  mentioned  as  what  was  common  to  the  dif- 
ciples in  that  day.'  Thusitisfaid,  Ads  xx.  7.  "And 
upon  the  firft  day  of  the  week,  when  the  difciples  c'^ixwo. 
together  to  break  bready  &:c.  &c.  It  is  not  faid  when 
fome  of  the  difciples  came  together  to  break  bread,  but 
when  ihe  difciples*'  &c.  The  apo ille  fpeaks  of  it  as 
what  the  difciples  did  in  common  ;  not  as  what  fome 
did  and  others  negleded. 

Again  ;  it  is  exprefsly  faid,  that  they  who  were  ad- 
mitted to  baptifm,  on  the  day  of  Penticoft,  did  con- 
tinue, ftedfaftly,  with  the  apofrles,in  breaking  of  breads 
as  well  as  in  do^rine  and  prayers. 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  have  we  not  the  moft  a~ 
bundant  reafon  to  conclude,  both  from  the  nature  of 
the  commifTion  which  Chrift  gave  his  apoftles,  and 
alfo  from  the  account  given  us  of  their  tranfactions, 
that  they  confidered  fuch  adults  as  they  received  to 
baptifm,  as  holden  to  obferve  and  attend  upon  all  in- 
ftituted  duties,  without  excepting  the  inftitution  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  ?  What  reafon  have  we  to  think 
that  the  apoftles  tolerated  their  difciples  in  a  negled 
of  the  inftitution  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  rather  than 
any  other  inftituted  duty  ?  I  think  no  one,  who  im- 
partially conftders  the  cafe,  can  find  the  leaft  evidence, 
that  the  apoftles  ever  thought  of  any  diftinclion  among 
covenant  duties  ;  their  commiftion  made  none,  and 
there  is  no  appearance  of  any  diftindion  being  al- 
lowed or  made  in  their  pradice. 
Let  us  now  proceed, 

S-ECONDLY,  More  particularly  to  enquire,  whether 
the  pradice  of  owning  the  covenant,  as  it  is  called, 
which  admits  perfons  to  the  privilege  of  baptifm,  who 
profeffedly  and  pradically  with-hold  their  attendance 


[    12    ] 

upon  the  facramcnt  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  be  fcrip- 
tural  and  to  be  indulged.  .      ' 

The  pradice  of  owning  the  covenant,  admits  adults 
to  the  privilege  of  baptifm,  for  themfelves  and  their 
feed,  who  neither  view  themfelves  under  any  covenant 
obligations  to  live  in  the  obfervation  of  a  plain  gofpel 
inflitution,  nor  do  the  church  confider  them  as  bemg 
bound  by  their  covenant  to  attend  upon  it ;  andthere- 
fove  not  difcfplineable  or  cenfurable  for  a  neglecl  and 
omiiTion  of  it.*  This  indeed,  is  not  the  only  diftinc- 
tipn  which  is  made  betwixt  thofe  w^ho  own  the  cove- 
nant and  thofe.  who  are  in  full  communion,  that  the 
former  are  not  confidered  as  being  under  covenant 
vows  to  celebrate  the  initituted  memorial  of  Chrift's 
death,  and  the  latter  are  ;  but  thofe,  who  o'wn  the  cov- 
enant y  are  not  confidered  as  having  a  right  to  a  voice 
in  the  church,  when  tranfading  the  affairs  of  Chrifl's 
kingdom,!  They  do  not  conlider  themfelves  as  be- 
ing under  the  fame  obligation  to  watch  over  and  deal 
with  one  another,  that  fuch  are  under  who  are  in  full 
communion  :  And  many  do  not  confider  themfelves 
as  under  fuch  obligations  to  a  holy  and  religious  life^ 
as  fuch  are  under  who  are  communicants  at  Chrift's 
table  ;  but  this  I  confider  as  an  abufe  of  the  original 
pradice.  The  pradlice,  therefore,  will  not  be  con- 
iidercd  in  this  gfofs  fenfc  of  it.  We  will  only  en- 
quire, whether  the  pradlice  of  adminiflering  baptifm 
to  fuch  adult  perlbns,  or  to  the  feed  of  fuch  as  pro- 
fcffedly  and  pradtically  with-hoid  an  attendance  upon 
the  inftitution  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  be  fcfiptural  ? 

If  the  pradlice  of  ov/ning  the  covenant,  as  delcribed 

*  I  am  not  infenfible,  tliaf  fome  call  the  covenant  which  fuch  make  ^fxdl 
and  complete  covenant  ;  but  I  am  unable  to  fee  the  propriety  of  its  being  fo 
called,  fince  the  covenant  peifon  does  not  mean  to  engage,  nor  the  church 
iindcrfland  him  as  engaging  an  attendance  ispon  a  plain  covenant  duty  and 
cxpn  fs  command  of  Jefus  Chrift. 

t  The  Synod,  held  at  Canibridge,  Anno  1662,  which  begun  the  praftice 
of  owning  the  covenant,  did  not  confider  perfons,  in  th^t  particular  fianding, 
ai  having  any  right  to  vote  in  the  church,  or  with  thofe  who  were  in  full 


commufiion. 


[       '3       ] 

in  this  enquiry,  be  not  fcripuiral,  it  is  not  to  be  in- 
dulged ;  for  the  fcripturc  mull  be  our  only  rule.  If 
we  have  not  fcripturc  precept  or  example  for  the  prac- 
tice, 'm  has  no  foundation.  As  to  politive  inftitutions, 
Ave  are  bound  by  the  exprefs  will  of  God.  We  may, 
indeed,  argue  relatively  to  them  as  Naaman  the  leper 
did,  about  the  rivers  of  Jordan  and  Pharpar  ;  v/e  may 
fay  that  we  do  not  fee,  why  luch  and  fuch  methods 
may  not  do,  as  well  as  thofe  which  we  find  exprefsly 
inflituted  by  God  ;  but  we  have  no  more  right  to 
pprfue  fuch  reafonings  in  pradlice,  than  Naaman  had 
to  purfue  his  ;  neither  can  we  expedl  better  fuccefs. 
We  muft  abide  by  what  is  revealed,  and  be  determin- 
ed by  the  inftitution  itfclf.  Such  as  are  unwilling  to 
be  determined  by  the  Bible,  mufb  anfwer  it  to  Chrift, 
who  hath  faid,  that  heaven  and  earth  fhall  pafs  away 
before  one  jot  or  tittle  ihall  fail  of  all  that  he  hath 
f^id.  A  church  ought  be  very  cautious,  how  they  a- 
dopt  rules  and  practices  which  are  of  mere  human 
invention  ;  for  in  adopting  fuch  rules,  they  rejed:  the 
authority  of  Chrift,  and  fo  pollute  all  their  offerings. 
In  vain,  fays  Chrift,  ye  do  worfnip  m.c,  teaching 
for  doctrine  the  commandments  of  men.*  It  is,  there- 
fore, of  very  great  importance,  that  a  church  grounds 
its  pracflice  upon  the  laws  and  inllitutions  of  its  king 
and  head.  With  thefe  things  in  view,  let  us  examine 
the  practice  of  o\\  ning  the  covenant.  And  it  is  hop- 
ed every  mind  will  be  attentive,  and  fo  far  divefted  of 
all  prejudice,  as  to  be  willing  to  know  and  receive  the 
truth,  wherever  it  may  appear. 

In  profecuting  this  enquiry,  I  Ihall, 

I.  Confider  thofe  things,  which  are  urged  in  favor 
of  the  practice. 

II.  A  variety  of  things  will  be  exhibited,  to  fhow 
the  unfcriptural  nature  of  the  pradice  of  owning  the 
covenant  ;  and  why  it  ought  to  be  abolilned. 

*   IVL:U    XV.   9. 


[        '4       ] 

I.  We  are  to  confider  thofe  things  which  are  urg- 
ed in  favour  of  the  practice  of  owning  the  covenant, 
or  of  admitting  fueh  adults  to  the  privilege  of  bap- 
tifm,  fof  thenifclves  or  feed,  who  profelTedly  and  prac- 
tically withhold  their  attendance  upon  the  inftitution 
of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

It  is  my  delign,  to  take  notice  of  the  various  things 
which  I  can  recoiled;  to  have  fccn  or  heard  urged,  in 
favor  of  the  practice,  however  trivial  ;  and  to  detect 
their  fallacy.  And, 

I  ft.  In  vindication  of  the  pracftice,  it  hath  been  faid, 
that  many  very  great  and  good  men  have  been  and 
ftill  are  in  it ;  and  that  it  has  been  of  long  continu- 
ance. 

Reply.  As  to  the  time  this  pra6tice  has  been  in 
being,  I  think  we  may  fafcly  affirm,  it  cannot  be  trac- 
ed back  to  the  days  of  the  apoftles. — And  it  is  certain 
itv/as  never  known  among  the  churches  in  this  land, 
till  near  half  a  century  after  the  firfi:  fettlement  of  it. 
But,  if  it  fheuld  be  granted  to  have  been  of  long  con- 
tinuance, yet  in  as  much  as  the  apoftles  were  ftrangers 
to  it  ;  this  ought  to  have  no  weight  in  our  minds. — 
And,  as  to  fuch  great  and  good  men  as  have  been  in 
the  practice,  I  believe,  fuch  as  urge  their  example  as 
an  argument  for  it,  wholly  miftake  the  views  they 
have  always  entertained  of  it.  I  truft,  I  may  ven- 
ture to  fay,  that  not  one  out  of  ten  of  thofe  who  have 
been  m  the  pradice,  have  been  for  it.  Thofe  who 
have  written  upon  the  fubjed:,  and  have  been  on  the 
fide  of  the  pradice,  have  in  general  acknowledged, 
that  although  rhey  were  in  it  they  were  not  for  it.*  So 
that  notvvithflanding  many  great  and  good  men  have 

*  But,  why  is  it  that  one  fays,  I  am  in  it,  but  not  for  it  ; — another,  that 
fcarcely  one  minifter  in  this  nation  is  pleafed  with  it,  if  it  be  apraftice  which 
is-of  divine  inftitution  ?  If  God  hath  inftitutcd  the  praflice,  or  if  it  be  agree- 
able tr)  rliviiie  inftitution,  why  are  they  \^oifor  it  ?  Why  arc  they  not  pleafed 
with  it  ?  Are  not  God's  inftitutions  wife  and  well  calculated  to  anfwer  hit 
o'vn  v'Jipofes  ?  Bat  if  the  piatlice  be  not  agreeable  to  divine  inftitution,  why 
aic  ihcy  iiiit  ? 


[      '5      ] 

been  in  thepradlice,  yet,  in  as  much  as  they,  in  gene- 
ral, have  not  been  for  it,  it  ought  to  be  coniidered 
as  an  evidence  and  teflimony  againft  the  piactice, 
rather  than  an  argument  in  its  favor.  Belides,  it  ought 
to  be  coniidered  and  remembered,  that  many  great  and 
good  men  have  not  only  be^en  /;/  but  for  a  contrary 
practice,  and  could  never  be  reconciled  to  the  prac- 
tice of  owning  the  covenant.  Many  have  been  zea- 
loufly  agaiufi  the  pradice  of  owning  the  covenant, 
while  very  few  have  been  really /c?r  it.  But  if  this 
fnould  not  fatisfy  all,  we  have  other  examples  to  op~ 
pofe  to  the  pracTtice  ofthofe,  who  have  been  in  it,w  hich 
ought  to  give  full  fatisfadion  ;  I  mean  the  example  of 
the  apoftles.  They  were  as  great  and  as  good  men, 
as  can  be  fuppofed  ever  to  have  been  in  the  practice, 
with  this  very  weighty  circumflance  in  their  favor, 
that  they  were  under  the  infpiration  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft  J  and  there  is  not  the  leaft  evidence,  that  they 
w  ere  ever  in  or  for  .the  pracSlice  under  confideration  ; 
but  the  pradice  is  againft  the  fpirit  of  their  commif- 
fion,  and  the  whole  of  their  tranfudions.  So  that 
what  is  now  urged  in  favor  of  the  pradice,  from  the 
example  of  great  and  good  men,  w  ho  have  been  bare- 
ly in  it,  cannot  be  confidered  as  having  any  weight, 
lince  not  only  other  great  and  good  men,  but  the  apof- 
tles, who  were  under  the  infpiration  of  the  Holy  Ghoft, 
have  been  not  only  not  in  the  pracflice,  but  againft  it. 
But, 
2dly.  It  has  been  further  urged,  in  favour  of  the 
pradicc  now  under  confideration,  that  under  the  for- 
mer difpenfation,  the  Jew  s  who  did  not  keep  the  paf- 
fover,  had  the  privilege  of  circumcifion  for  their  feed  ; 
from  whence  it  is  inferred,  that  it  is  the  will  of  God 
that  the  feal  of  the  covenant  ftiould  be  adminiftered, 
tofome  at  leaft,  who  do  not  attend  upon  the  facrament 
ot  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  is  faid,  that  the  Jew  under 
ceremonial  defilement,  who  might  not  keep  the  paf- 


[       '6      ] 

lover,  mighf,  neYcrthelefs,  have  the  privilege  of  cir- 
cumcifion.* 

Reply.  Whoever  carefully  attends  to  the  cafe, 
muft  fee,  that  there  is  nothing  in  what  is  now  urgedy 
which  makes  any  thing  for  the  practice  of  owning  the 
covenanti  or  of  adminillcring  baprifm  to  fuch  as  live 
in  the  profeffed  and  continued  omifiioh  of  the  facra- 
ment  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Jew,  in  cafe  of  le- 
gal deiilcmenr,wa3  forbidden  to  eait  of  the  pafTover  ;  in 
omitting  ir,  under  dfe^circumftances,  he  did  it  in  o- 
bedience  to  the  command  of  God  ;  but  he  who  owns 
his  covenant  withholds  his  attendance  upon  the  Lord's 
Supper  in  oppoiition  to  a  plain  andexprefs  command. 

Furthermore,  The  cafes  of  the  defiled.  Jew,  and  of 
thofe  who  own  the  covenant,  are  totally  diffimilar  in 
another  refpscl:.  The  Jew,  who  v/as  defiled,  was  on- 
ly iin  occa/JofirJ  omktGr  of  the  paiTovcr  ;  he  was  not 
fuffered  to  omit  it  time  after  time,  and  year  after  year  j 
he  might  not  omit  the  paffover  fo  much  as  one  time, 
on  the  whole,  on  account  of  legal  defilement;  This 
will  appear,  if  waattend  to  the  cafe  as  flatedNumb.  ix. 
I — 13.  It  appears  from  the  account  therein  given  us, 
that  God  had  directed  the  people  to  keep  the  paffover, 
on  the  14th  day  of  the  firil  m.onth,  according  to  the  o- 
riginal  inllitution.  It  happened  that  fome  were  defi- 
led with  the  touch  of  a  dead  body.  They  went  to 
Mofes  with  their  cale,  as  they  were  at  a  lofs  about 
keeping  the  palTovcr  v.ith  the  people.  Mofes  afks  di- 
redion  of  God,  God  anfwers  Mofes  as  in  the  9th  and 
loth  verfes,  in  thefe  words.  "  Speak  unto  the  chil- 
dren of  I  irael,  faying,  if  any  man  of  you,  or  of  your 
pofterity  be  unclean  by  reafon  of  a  dead  body,  or  be  in 
a  journey  afar  off  jr/  he  Jhall  keep  the  paffover  unto  the 
Lord.  Thefourleenth  day  of  thejecond  month  they  Jhall 
keep  it.''  It  appears  from  thefe  words,  that  the  perfon 
who  was  unclean  on  the  14th  day  of  the  firit  month, 

*  Ely's  Serm.  on  Gal.  iii.  27. 


[17      ] 

when  the  body  of  the  Jews  kept  the  pafTover,  miVhc 
not  live  in  the  neglcd  of  it  till  the  next  annual  return 
bf  the  paflbver,  he  muft  keep  it  the  very  next  month ; 
he  might  not  omit  it,  on  the  whole,  for  one  time.  So 
that,  on  the  whole  there  was  no  toleration  of  an  onjiif- 
fion  for  any  length  of  time,  on  account  of  ceremonial 
defilement.  At  moft,  no  more  can  be  pretended,  than 
a  toleration  of  an  occalional  omifiion,  during  the  fliorc 
term  of  ceremonial  defilement,  or  for  one  month  only; 
he  muft  keep  the  palTovcr  as  often  as  the  reft  of  the 
people.* 

Now,  how  does  this  at  all  juftify,  or  even  counte- 
nance the  praftice  of  admitting  fuch  to  the  privilege 
of  baptifm,  who  omit  the  Lord's  Supper^  not  merely 
bn  fome  ©ccafions,  but  on  all  occafions,  and  that  year 
after  year,  and  if  they  pleafe  forever  ?  If  ir  were  true, 
that  a  Jew  might  have  circumcifion^  although  he 
Ihould  neglect  to  keep  the  paffover  occafionally^  could  we 
from  thence  infer,  that  it  is  the  will  of  God,  that  a 
perfon,  under  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  ftiould  have  the 
privilege  of  baptifm,  although  he  fliould  live  in  a  coiv 
tinued  omifiion  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  year  after  year, 
«lnd  if  he  lliould  pleafe  forever  ?  I  am  lure  it  cannot 
be  pretended.  There  is  nothing  in  the  cafe  of  the  de- 
filed Jew,  that  fo  much  as  countenances  the  pra(5lice 
of  owning  the  covenant.  We  are  rather  taught  by  it, 
that  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  no  public  inftitution. 
fhould  be  neglected  or  omitted  ;  for,  rather  than  the 
Jew  lliould,  on  the  whole,  live  in  one  omifiion  of  the 
paifover,  God  makes  fpccial  provifton  and  a  new  in- 
ftitution for  himj  who  was  under  fuch  circumilances, 
C 

_  +  Some  have  faid,  that  ceremonial  cleannefs  was  typical  of  moral  pu- 
rity ;  and  as  a  Jew,  who  doubted  of  his  ceremonial  cleannels  was  tolerated  in 
an  omffion  of  the  palFover.fo  may  a  ChriHian  be  tolerated  inomitting  the  Lord's 
Supper,  when  he  doubts  of  his  rnoral  purity. 

,  Anfw^r.  The  Jew  was  not  tolerated  in  wemiflion.  He  might  not  delay 
more  than  one  month  on  account  of  bis  doubts,  or  in  cafe  of  rea/ defilements 
So  that  if  there  were  any  thing  typical  in  the  cafe,  it  would  not  prove  any- 
thing in  favour  of  a  profeffed  and  continued  omiffion  of  any  ordinance  ;  for,  on 
the  whole  there  was  no  omiflion  lokrarcd*  or  allowed ;  And  but  one  atOBtfe 
Vras  allowed  foi  the  rexaevftl  of  ical  dciiienicnt, 


[       '8       ] 

25  prohibited  his  keeping  i:  with  tlie  body  ef  the  peo- 
ple.    Again, 

jdly.  God's  deaUngg  with  the  Jews  in  Jofiah's 
time,  have  been  mentioned  in  juftification  of  theprac-^ 
tice  of  owning  the  covenant.  It  has  been  faid,  that 
the  Jews,  who  from  the  time  of  the  Judges  to  Joliah's 
time,  had  not  regularly  attended  upon  the  pafrover,en-. 
joyed  circumcifion  and  were  not  rejected  and  caft  off 
by  God  ; — from  hence  it  is  inferred,  that  perfons  may 
%Q  fo  far  in  good  ftanding  in  the  covenant,  as  to  be 
qualified  for  baptifm,  although  they  live  in  a  continu- 
al omiilion  of  the  Lord's  Supper.* 

Reply.  Is  it  not  as  true  that  the  Jews,  ats  a  body, 
^ere  in  grofs  idolatry  when  Joiiahcameto  the  throne, 
as  that  they  had  omitted,  for  a  long  time,  regularly  to 
keep  the  paffover  ?  Certainly  it  is.f  May  we  not 
then^  v/ith  as  much  reafon,  infer  that  baptifm  may  be 
adininiftered  to  grofs  idohUors,  as  to  thofc  who  negled: 
a  plain  inftitution  ?  If  we  may  infer  that  perfons  may 
be  qualified  for  the  feal  of  the  covenant,  when  they  live 
in  the  continued  omiiTion  of  plain  infl:itutions,  front 
God's  not  carting  off  the  Jews  when  they  neglcifled  re- 
gularly to  attend  upon  the  paffover,  we  may  infer,  that 
perfons  in  grofs  idolatry  are  qualified  for  the  feal  of 
the  covenant  ;  becaufe  it  is  jufl  as  true  that  the  Jev/s 
were  not  caff  off  when  in  ^rofs  idolatry,  as  that  they 
were  not  v/hen  they  negledted  the  paffover  ;  for  they 
Vf  ei-e  in  open  idolatry  at  the  fame  time. 

What  is  here  urged,  therefore,  is  as  much  in  favor 
of  admitting  gfo/s  tdolators  to  baptifm,  and  of  their  be- 
ing qualijieci  fubjec^s  for  it,  as  of  the  practice  of  own- 
ing the  covenant. 

'The  truth  of  the  cafe  is  this  ;  the  Jews  in  the  be- 
ginning of  Jofiah's  reign,  were  utterly  unqualified  for 
one  church  privilege. — Had  an  individual  been  in  the 
ilate  the  Jews  were,  in  the  beginning  of  Jofiah's  reign, 
the  church  mufl  have  exconamunicated  him,  if  they 

*  Ely's  Seim.  p,  31.  t  Sec  s.  Kings,  chap.  xxii.  and  xxiii* 


[      ^9      3 

had  proceeded  according  to  the  rules  v.  bich  God  ViacJ 
given  them  :  And  God,  in  not  cafting  them  off,adted 
above  the  laws  which  he  had  given  his  churcii  as  a 
rule  of  their  condudt.  God  had  a  right  fo  to  do,  but 
his  church  muft  abide  by  the  laws  and  rules  which 
God  gives  them. 

4.thly.  It  has  been  further  faid,  in  favor  of  ownmg 
the  covenant,  that  fuch  as  were  baptited  in  infancy, 
have  a  right,  merely  on  that  account,  to  the  feal  of 
baptifm  for  their  feed  ;  therefore,  nothing  further  is 
requilite  than  to  own  the  covenant. 

Reply.     Do  fuch  as  urge  this  mean,  that  children 
have  a  right  to  baptifm,  merely  on  account  of  the  bap- 
tifm  of  the  parent  ?  If  this  be  their  meaning,  it  is 
nothing  in  favor  of  the  practice  of  owning   the  cove- 
nant ;  for  it  nmkes  owning  the  covenant  wholly  un- 
necelTary.     If  the   baptifm  of  parents  be,  in  itfelf  a 
qualification  for  the  baptifm  of  their  feed,  then  ov/n- 
ing  the  covenant  is  wholly  unneceiTary  :  And  fo  what 
knowurged  can  be  nothing  in  favor  of  owning  the  cove- 
nant, nor  any  other  perfohal  tranfadlion,  in  adult  years. 
But,  the  tuppofition  that  the  baptifm  of  a  parent  is, 
in  itfelf,  a  qualification  for  the  baptifm  of  his  feed,  is 
altogether  groundlefs  and  unfcriptural.     The  baptifm 
of  a  parent  is  nothing,  ijnlefs  he  continues  in  good 
Handing  in  the  covenant,  or  lives  in  the  practice  of  all 
covenant  duties.     Hence  fays  the  apoftle,  "  Circum- 
cijicn  verily  profiieth^  if  ihoii  keep  the  laiv^  hut  if  thou  he 
a  breaker  ofthelaxvy  thy  circumcifion  is  made  tincircumci- 
Jim."%     It  appears  from  this  paffage,  that  the  baptifm 
of  a  parent  is  nothing,  unlefs  he  keep  the  law,  or  live§ 
in  the  practice  of  covenant  duties.     If  we  fhould  fup- 
pofe  that  parents   were  baptifed  in  infancy  or  riper 
years,  yet  fhould  not  live  in  the  pradlice  of  covenant 
duties,  they  would  be  no  better  than  heathens  or  pub- 
licans,— their  circumcifion  would  be  uncircumcifion. 
In  order  to  a  perfon's  having  any  Handing  in  the  cove- 
nant, it  is  abfolutely  necefTary,  that  he  be  neither  a  he^ 
retic  nor  immoral  perfon  y    perfons  of  either  of  thofe 

^  Rom.  ii.  25. 


r   20   ] 

charadcrs  may  have  no  landing  in  the  church  of 
Chrift.  It  is  as  neGcffary  that  a  perfon  who  was  bap- 
tifed  in  infancy,  fhould  hcfou72d  in  thefailb,  and  live 
in  the  pradice  of  the  duties  of  religion,  in  order  to 
his  having  a  Itaading  in  the  church  in  adult  years,  or 
enjoying  church  privileges,  as  it  is  for  any  other  per- 
fon, whatever.  Herefy  or  immorality  difqualifies  a  per- 
fon for  church  privileges  ;  his  eircumcifion  becomes 
uncircumciiion.f  This  leads  us  to  fee,  that  the  bap- 
tifm  of  a  parent  is  not  of  itfelf  a  qualification  for 
church  privileges  ;  he  muft  be  found  in  the  faith,  and 
live  in  the  pradrice  of  the  duties  of  rehgion  j  other- 
•\vife  his  circumcihon  becomes  uncircumcilion.  Thefc 
obfervations,  alio  lead  us  to  fee,  that  it  is  as  neceflary, 
that  a  perfon  who  w^as  baptifcd  in  infancy,  fhould 
make  a  confeflion  of  his  f^iith,  and  declare  his  compli- 
ance with  the  covenant  of  grace,  in  order  to  his  en- 
ioying  privileges  in  adult  years,  as  it  is  for  any  other 
perfon  ;  for  unlefs  he  be  found  in  the  faith,  and  do 
comply  with  the  covenant,  he  is  no  better  than  the 
unbaptifed, — his  circumciiion  is  become  uncircum- 
cilion ;  and  we  mu ft  judge  that  he  is  found  in  the  faith 
^nd  does  comply  with  the  covenant,  by  the  fame  rule 
hji  which  we  judge  of  others.  So  that  what  is  now 
urged,  refpedting  the  baptifm  of  parents,  is  nothing 
to  the  purpofe  ;  for  if  it  be  meant  that  the  baptifm 
of  parents,  in  itfeif,  qualifies  their  feed  for  baptifm, 
then  ownnig  the  covenant  is  perfcdtly  unneceliary  : 
But  if  it  be  meant  that  they  muft  in  addition  to  it,  be 
in  good  covenant  ftanding,  that  is,  found  in  the  faith 
and  m  the  pradicjc  of  covenant  duties,  this  is  utterly 
inconfillent  with  the  pradice  of  owning  the  cove- 
nant ;  for  then  it  will  be  necclTary  that  they  live  in 
the  obfervation  of  the  inftitution  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, which  is  a  covenant  duty  :  So  that  what  is  now 
urged  cannot  be  viewed  as  any  fupport  or  juftificationt 
ofthe  pradice  of  owaiing  the  covenant. 

+  Tit.  iij.  lo.  J  J.      2.  ThcfT,  Jii.  11.  12,  -iZ' 


Again, 

5thly.  It  has  been  faid,  in  juflification  of  the  prac-r 
dec  of  owning  the  covenant,  that  an  omifiion  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  too  fmall  a  faiJure,  on  account  of 
which,  to  cut  a  perfon  off  from  the  privilege  of  bap- 
tifm. 

Reply,  i  ft.  A  neglcfi  to  keep  tlie  pqjfo'uer,  was  hot 
too  fmall  a  failure  in  the  view  of  God;  to  merit  excqmrr 
munication,  : 

The  Jew  who  did  not  keep  the  paflbver  was  to  have 
no  Handing  among  God's  people,  It  is  faid,  "  thq 
inan  that  is  clean  and  not  on  a  journey,  that  forbear- 
eth  to  keep  the  paffover,  even  the  fame  (ou\  J/jall  be 
cut  0^  from  his  people."!  Ceremonial  d^filementjOr 
being  on  a  diftant  journey  apologized  for  an  occasion- 
al omilTion  of  the  paffover,  but  not  for  a  continued 
neglecfl,  There  was  no  fufficient  apology  or  excufQ 
could  be  given  for  a  continued  omiffion  of  the  paffo- 
ver. It  becomes  us  then  to  be  very  cautious,  how  we 
urge  it  as  too  fmall  a  failure,  on  account  of  vv^hich  ;to 
cut;perfons  off  from  church  privileges,  mefelybecaufe 
^ey 'neglect  the  inftitution  of  the  Lord's  Supper;  for 
^hat  is  as  reafonabie  and  important  aninftitutionasthc 
paffover  ;  and  yet  we  find  that  God  viewed  an  omif-^ 
fion  of  the  latter  a  fufficient  reafon  for  excommunica- 
ting the  delinquent. 

2dly.  I  would  enquire  how  it  comes  about,  that  it 
is  vievved  as  fo  fmall  and  inconfidcrable  a  failure,  in  a 
perfon  to  neglect  theinflitutionof  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 

Is  not  the  inftitution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  a  duty  of 
the  covenant  ?  Is  it  not  as'  reafonabie  an  inititution  as 
any  one  in  the  New  Teftament  ?  Is  not  Chriff  infi- 
nitely worthy  of  a  memorial  ?  Has  he  not  done 
enough  to  render  a  memorial  of  him  both  reafonabie 
and  delightful  ?  How  comes  it  about,  then,  that  it  is 
viewed  as  fo  very  fmall  and  inconliderable  a  failure,  t# 

+  Numb.   ix.  13. 


r  2^  J 

neglc<5l  fo  plain  and  reafonable  an  inflitution  ?  If  liv- 
ing in  the  neglecft  of  plain  .covenant  duties  does  not 
difqualify  for  covenant  privileges,  it  is  difBcult  to  fay 
what  does.  If  it  be  fcaiidalous  to  live  in  the  omiffion 
of  piain,  reafonable  and  iniportant  covenant  duties,  it 
is  fo  to  negle6i  the  inftitution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ; 
for  that  is  a  plain,  a  reafonable  and  important  cove- 
nant duty  :  And  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  it^  that  it 
fhould  be  viewed  as  fo  innocent  and  harnnlefs  an  omif- 
fion  to  withhold  an  attendance  upon  it.  Whoever  con- 
fiders  how  plain  and  reafonable  a  duty  it  is,  cannot 
urge  the  omiffion  of  it,  as  too  fmall  a  failure  to  difqual- 
ify for  covenant  privileges  ;  for  if  negledling  plain 
cov-enant  duties  does  not  difquaHfy  perfons  for  privi- 
leges, nothing  can  do  it.  And  whoever  confiders  how 
ttecefFary  an  attendance  upon  the  palFover  was  in  the- 
view  of  God,  in  order  to  a  ftanding  in  the  church  of 
old,  will  be  very  cautiou§  how  he  urges  a  negledl  of  fo 
important  and  reafonable  an  inftitution  as  that  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  as  being  too  fmall  a  failure  on  account 
ofwhich  to  with-hold  covenant  privileges.     Again. 

6thly.^  It  has  been  faid  by  fome,  in  vindication  of 
the  pradtjce  of  owning  the  covenant,  that  it  is  no 
where  exprefsly  forlaidden. 

Reply,  There  arp  a  thoufand  other  poflible  pra<fti- 
ces  which  mankind  may  adopt,  that  are  aot  exprefsly 
prohibited.  I'hp  queftion  is,  is  the  practice  agreea- 
ble to  the  inftitution  ?  The  want  of  inftitution  is  a  fuf- 
iicicnt  prohibition.  We  have  no  right  or  waiTant  to 
take  one  ft:ep  beyond  the  inftitution.  If  God  has  giv- 
en us  liberty  to  ad,  we  have  a  warrant  for  adting ;  but 
a  want  of  Hcence  is  a  full  prohibition.  It  is  not  ex- 
prefsly faid,  that  you  may  not  baptife  your  own  chil- 
dren ;  but  you  do  not  venture  upon  the  praftice,  be- 
canfc  you  do  not  find  a  warrant  for  it  ;  fo  a  want  of 
licence  in  the  prefent  cafe,  is  a  fufficient  objednon  a- 
gainft  the  practice  now  under  confideration,  although 
k  be  not,  by  name,  exprefsly  prohibited.     Furthermore, 


C      ^-3       1 

7thly.  It  has  been  urged  in  favor  of  the  practice  of 
owning  the  covenant,  that  perfons  may  be  qualified 
for  baptifm,  and  ndt  for  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  and  there- 
fore thepradlice  of  owning  the  covenant  muft  be  both 
lawful  and  neceffary. 

Reply.  I  do  not  recGlIcdl  ever  to  have  feen  a  diver- 
lity  of  qualifications  for  the  two  ordinan.ces,  Baptifm 
and  the  Lord's  Supper,  urged  as  a  realbn  for  the  prac- 
tice of  owning  the  covenant,  by  any  author  vvho  has 
written  upon  the  fubjecl  ;  however,  as  I  am  pcrfua- 
ded  that  it  has  weight  and  influence  in  the  view  of 
fome,  in  this  place,  I  fhali  briefly  confider  its  weight 
and  merit.     And  here  I  would  obferve;    . 

I  ft.  It  does  not  appear  that  God  hath  ever  made 
any  diftindion  betwixt  the  two  ordinances,  baptifm 
and  the  Lod's  Supper^  in  point  of  qualification  j  if  it 
be  fo,  we  have  no  right  to  make  any. 

There  is  not  the  leaft  evidence,  from  any  thing 
written  in  our  Bibles,  that  the  apofties  made  any  di- 
ftindlion,  in  point  of  qualification  for  the  two  ordnian- 
ees,  in  their  practice.  The  eommijion  they  received 
from  Chrift,  and  their />r£?^/V^  agree  in  this,  that  one 
and  the  fame  fubjedl:  is  qualified  ibr  both  ordinances  ; 
fpr  thofe  whom  they  bapti fed,  continued  with  them  in 
**  breakiiig  of  bready*  as  well  as  in  docirine  and  prayers^ 

idly.  What  is  now  urged,  refped^ing  a  diverfity  of 
qualifications  for  the  ordniances  of  baptifm.  and  the 
Lord's  Supper^  is  contrary  to  the  plain  import  of  the 
pradice  you  have  always  been  ufed  to,  in  this  place. 

You  have  ever  had  but  one  covenant ;  and  a  com- 
pliance with  that  has  always  been  made  neceffary,  both 
for  the  privilege  of  baptifm  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Vou  have  always  required  perfons  to  engage  the  lame 
things  in  order  to  their  enjoying  either  ordinance  ;  ex- 
cepting the  one  muft  engage  an  attendance  upon  the 
inrtitution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  and  the  other  not. 
This,  makes  it  evident,  that  it  was  always  fuppofed,  by 
the  church  and  people  in  this  place,  that  the  qualifi- 
cations, I  mean  the  ejfential  qualifications  for  the  two 


[Hi 

©rdinancei,  were  the  fame  ;  otherwifc  they  have  al- 
ways beeti  Wrong  in  inliiling  upon  the  fame  things  ai 
i'equi(ij:e  for  an  attendance  upon  either. 

3dly.  What  is  now  urged  is  contrary  to  the  opi- 
nion of  minifters  in  general,  who  have  been  in  the 
pradlice  of  owning  the  covenant. 

It  is  not  on  account  of  any  real  difference  as  to  the 
qualifications  for  the  two  ordinances,  that  miniflers 
practife  baptifing  or  giving  the  privilege  of  baptifrri 
to  fuch  adliks  as  negleiif  the  inftitution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  ;  but  in  condefcenlion  to  the groundlefs  fcruples 
and  ignorance  of  the  people.  It  is  on  this  ground, and 
not  on  any  real  difference,  as  to  the  qualifications  for 
the  two  ordinances,-  that  the  pradlice  of  owning  the 
covenant  refts,  in  the  viev/  of  fuch  minifters  as  j)rac-; 
tife  upon  it  ;  fo  fiir  as  I  am  acquainted  with  theif 
views  of  the  prailice, 

4thly'.  Is  it  not  demonfffably  true,  that  there  can- 
not be  a  diverlity  of  qualifications  for  the  two  ordi- 
nances. 

Our  Saviour  mod:  certainly  knew,  what  his  will 
ever  would  be,  relpectiiig  the  ordinances  of  baptifm' 
and  the  Lord's  Supper:  And  he,  very  exprefsly,  gave" 
it  in  charge  to  his  apoftlcs,  to  inlift  upon  it  that  the 
baptifed  Ihould  attend  upon  all  inf lituted  duties.  "  Ga 
ye  and  teach  all  nations^  baptijlng  them  in  the  name  of ^^c. 
teaching  them  to  objerve  all  things  what  Jo  ever  I  have' 
commanded  you  J"  Now,  had  there  been  a  diverfity  of 
qualifications  for  thole  tv/o  ordinances,  we  cannot  fup- 
pofc,  that  our  Saviour  would  have  charged  his  apof- 
tles  to  teach  and  inliil  upon  it,  that  all  thofe  whom' 
they  fnould  baptife,"  lliould  do  or  obferve  all  things 
whatfoever  he  had  commanded. 

Again.  As  a  qualification  for  baptifm,  it  is  abfo- 
lutely  neceilary  that  a  perfon  be  in  covenant  with  God  ; 
for  baptifm  is  a  viark  and  token  of  the  covenant  ;  this 
mark  and  token  cannot  be  fixed  on  any,  excepting 
fuch  as  have  a  viiible  covenant  relation  to  God;-— 


[      25      ] 

And,  when  a  pciTon  takes  upon  him  the  covenant,  he 
engages  to  do  all  the  duties  of  the  covenant  ;  this  muft 
be  a  neceflluy  qualification  for  baptifm.  And  can 
any  pretend  that  it  is  a  greater  thing,  or  requires 
higher  quaUfications  to  do  the  duties  of  the  covenant  ; 
than  to  engage  to  do  them  ?  And  is  not  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per a  covenant  duty  ?  Does  not  the  covenant  compre- 
hend all  duties  ?  Mofl:  certainly  it  does.  And  does  not 
God  make  over  all  the  benefits,  privileges,  and  blef- 
fings  of  the  covenant  to  his  covenant  people  ?  There 
is  nothing  more  manifcft  than  that  he  does.  If  thefe 
things  be  fo,  how  can  there  be  higher  qualifications 
tequifite  for  the  Lord's  Supper  than  for  baptifm,  fince 
it  is  abfolutely  neceffary  that  there  be  a  covenant  rela- 
tion to  God  in  order  to  baptifm  ?  Since  the  covenant 
does  extend  to  all  Chriflian  duties — and  fince  God  be- 
queaths all  the  bleiTmgs  and  privileges  of  the  cove- 
nant to  men,  on  the  fole  condition  of  their  being  in 
covenant  with  him,  it  is  without  the  leaft  ftiadow  of 
reafon  that  it  is  urged,  that  men  may  be  qualified  for 
baptifm  and  not  for  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  for  being  in 
covenant  v/ith  God  is  the  condition  of  all  covenant 
blelfings ;  is  the  alone  qualification  for  baptifm,  for 
the  Lord's  Supper,  and  for  all  the  blelfings  of  Chrifl:'S 
kingdom.  So  that  the  pra6tice  of  ©waning  the  cove- 
nant cannot  be  grounded  on  any  real  difference,  in 
point  of  qualification  for  the  two  ordinances,  baptifm 
and  the  Lord's  Supper, 

But  fome  may  poffibly  fay,  that  baptifm  is  only  art 
introdudion  into  Chrifl's  fcheol,  and  fo  does  not  fup- 
pofe  that  a  perfon  h  fully  inftrucfted  into  the  Chrifi:ian 
religion,  and  prepared  for  all  its  ordinances. 

Anfwer.  That  muft  be  an  egregious  miftake ;  for 
as  baptifm  is  a  token  of  the  covenant,  and  fuppofes  that 
a  perfon  is  in  the  covenant,  fo  it  always  fuppofes  that 
a  perfon  is  inftruded  into  the  nature  of  it,and  acquain- 
ted with  the  capital  duties  which  are  contained  in  it. 
And  it  is  exceedingly  evident,  that  our  Saviour  him- 
D 


[      j6      ] 

felf  fuppofed,  that  fuch  inflruclion  was  necefiary  to 
precede  baptifm,  as  qualified  a  perfon,  an  adiiit,  to  ob- 
ferve  all  the  capital  duties  of  the  Chriftian  religion. 
Hence,  v.iien  he  fent  his  apoftlcs  to  baptiie,  he  charg- 
ed them  in  their  commifilon,  firjl  to  taichy  then  to  bap- 
tife.  InftruCtion  was  to  precede  bapriim  ;  and  the 
inllrudtion  was,  doubtlefs,  to  extend  to  all  thofe  duties 
which  Vy'ould  be  incumbent  on  them,  in  confequence 
of  baptifm  :  and  thofe  were  all  the  duties  of  the  Chrif- 
tian  religion  ;  for  they  were  to  teach  them  to  obferve 
^ijljbings  whatfoevcr  Chrift  had  commanded  them. 
This  objeclioni  therefore,  proceeds  from  miftaken 
conceptibns  of  the  nature  and  defign  of  baptifm. 

It  may  be  further  urged,  that  there  muft  be  greater 
qualifications  requiiite  for  the  Lord's  Supper  than 
covenanting,  becaufe  we  find  fuch  fpecial  judgments 
threatned  to,  and  adlually  in'dided  upoii  the  profaners 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  cannot  be  found  refpediing 
the  unworthy  covenanter.  It  is  faid  "  He  that  eateth 
and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damna- 
tion to  himfelfi"  And  the  Corinthians  who  profan- 
ed the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  were  vifited 
with  the  judgment  of  peftilcnce,  whereas  there  are  no 
fuch  warnings  given  againft  covenanting  unworthily. 

Anfwer.  What  the  apofile  means  by  damnation,  in 
tiie  paffage  juft  mentioned,  is  judgement ;  teaching  us, 
tha?  fuch  as  profane  that  ordinance  do  expofc  them- 
felves  to  the  av/ful  judgments  of  heaven  :  And  this 
was  exemplified  in  the  Corinthians,  who  fufFcred  by 
the  judgment  of  peililence,  as  a  punifliment  for  their 
.profaning  that  ordinance.  But,  has  not  God  warned 
us  in  as  folemn  a  manner  againft  covenanting  un- 
worthily ?  Did  not  God  threaten "Ifrael  with,  gvc at  2iTid 
terrible  judgments,  for  drawing  near  to  him  with  their 
lips  "whilfi  their  hearts  werefar  from  him  ?  Turn  your 
attention,  alfo,  to  the  cafe  of  Jnnanias  and  Sapphira. 
They  had  folemnly  covenanted  to  dedicate  themfelves 
and  their  efta^e  to  the  fervice  of  God  ;  but  they  dealt 


[         27         ] 

deceitfully  with  him,  and  kept  back  part  of  the  price 
for  which  they  had  fold  their  inheritance.  And  did 
God  behold  their  condud  with  greater  indiiteren'cy, 
than  theconduclof  the  Corinthians  when  they  profan- 
ed the  Lord's  Supper  ?  No  ;  for  he  fent  the  moft  aw- 
ful judgment  upon  them  ;  they  were  ft  ruck  dead  in  an 
inftant  1 

Upon  the  whole,  therefore,  let  us  turn  our  attention 
which  way  we  will,  we  have  the  utmofl  reafon  to  con- 
clude, that  the  qualifications  for  covenanting  or  bap- 
tifm,  are  as  great  as  thofe  for  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  and 
fo  there  cannot  be  any  neceffity  of  the  pradlice  of  own- 
ing the  covenant,  on  account  of  a  diverfity  of  qualifi- 
cations, refpecting  the  ordinances  of  baptifm  and  the 
Lord's  Supper.     But, 

8thly,  It  is  urged,  that  notwithftanding  the  qualifi- 
cations for  baptifm  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  one  and 
the  fame,  yet,  in  as  much  as  fome  may  think  them- 
felves  qualified  for  baptifm,  and  at  the  fame  time 
fcruple  their  qualifications  for  the  Lord's  Supper,  ktuM 
nejs,  tendernejs  and  condefctiifwn,  to  the  fcrupulous,  re- 
quire that  we  admit  them  to  the  former  in  a  negled  of 
the  latter.— What  is  here  urged,  I  take  to  be  the  great 
fupport  of  the  pradice,  in  the  view  of  the  moft  of  thofe 
who  are  in  it. 

Reply.  I  am  an  advocate  for  kindnefs  and  tcnder- 
nefs,  and  would  ad  fuch  a  part  as  real  kindnefs  and 
tenderhefs  require .;  but  herein  I  muft  be  directed  by 
God,  who  beft  knows  what  is  moft  for  his  glory  and 
the  good  of  men.  We  may  not  go  to  unjuftifiable 
lengths,  under  the  notion  of  kindnefs  and  tendernefu 
And,  for  my  part,  I  am  unable  to  find  the  leaft  warrant 
in  fcripture,  for  fetting  afide,  or  difpenfing  with  plain 
inftitutcd  duties,  in  condefccnfion  to  the  unjuft  fcru- 
ples  or  prejudices  of  men.  There  are  precepts  and 
examples  in  abundance,  for  making  indifferent  things 
give  way  to  the  fcruples  and  prejudices  of  mankind  : 
But  there  is  neither  precept  nor  example  for  making 
divine  ordinances  find  injiitulions  give  v»^ay  to  fuch  fcru- 


[         28         ] 

pics  and  prejudices.  Indifferent  things  ought  to  be 
facrificed  to  them  ;  but  divine  inftitiUions  may  not  be' 
difpenfed  with  ;  they  are  more  facred  than  groundlcfs 
prejudices*.  We  do  well  in  giving  up  indifferent  things 
for  the  fake  of  eafing  the  confciences  of  the  fcrupulous, 
and  in  condefcenlion  to  the  prejudices  of  the  weak^ 
but  the  moment  we  fet  aiide,  or  difpenfe  with  divine 
inftitutions  for  that  purpofe,  we  do  that  which  is  with- 
out any  fcripture  precept  or  example.  Wc  have  as 
good  a  right  to  give  up  every  law  and  inftitution  of 
Chrill's  kingdom,  as  one  particular  inftitution  ;  for 
they  are  equally  binding  and  cloathed  with  the  fame 
authority.   • 

What  St.  Paul  fays,  refpeding  the  condefcenlion  we 
ought  to  ufe  towards  "  him  that  is  zveak  in  the  faiths' 
wholly  refpeds  indifferent  things,  fuch  as  particular 
daysy  meats  and  drinks ;  he  docs  not  give  the  leaft  inti- 
jnation,  that  we  muft  give  up  or  difpenfe  with  plain 
inftitutions  for  the  fake  of  gratifying  or  giving  eafe  to 

*  A  fcraple  relative  to  an  attendance  upon  the  facraraent  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  has  been  confidcred,  as  being  v try  facred  indeed  !  But  on  what  ac- 
count or  for  what  good  reafon,  I  am  utterly  unable  to  conceive.  The  infti- 
tutioi!  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  very  plain  one  ;  and  what  can  there  be,  which 
ibeuld  render  a  fcraple,  as  to  attending  upon  it,  fo  very  virtuous,  or  even  tri' 
fiocetit  ?  If  a  fPrvant  Ihould  fcruple  to  comply  with  the  will  of  his  mafler,  in 
a  cafe  where  his  >vill  was  obvious,  and  his  demand  rcafonable,  would  fuch  a 
fcruple  be  thought  an  excufe  I  Scruples,  as  to  doing  what  Chrift  mod  manu 
Jcjlly  requires  and  deinar.ds,  cannot,  certainly,  be  the  mofl:  innocent  fcuples. 
li'it  fhould  be  fiid,  that  the  fciupulous  perfon  only  fcruples  his  qualifications 
to  do  as  Chriii  diretls,  flill  it  is  difficu't  to  conceive,  how  it  can  be  confidered 
as  an  excufe  or  apology  ;  for  a  perfon  not  being  prepared  to  do  his  Lord's 
will,  when  he  knows  what  it  is,  was  not  confidered  by  our  SavFour  himfelf, 
fts  affording  the  moil  acceptable  apology.  He  fays,  "  Thatjtrvantjhould  be 
beaten  with  manyjlripes." 

A  perfon  being  very Jerious  in  fcrup'in,'^  to  do  as  Chrift  demands,  or  in 
fcrupling  his  own  qualifications  to  do  it,  does  not,  as  I  can  conceive,  afford 
the  leaft  apology  or  excufe.  If  a  perfon  fhould  fcruple  to  do  that  which  is 
tx'pre{s\yJorbidd€n,  it  would  be  a  virtuous  fcruple  :  but  when  he  fcruples  to 
do  that  which  is  exprefsly  required,  the  fcruple,  inftead  of  being  virtuous,  ot 
even  innocatt,  muft  become  criminal.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  men 
fliould  fomctimes  fcruple  to  do  what  other  nun  require  ;  but  it  is  fomewhat 
furprifing,  that  they  ftjould  fcruple  to  daV/hat  Jejus  ChrIST  exprefsly  de« 
iaaands,  and  coiifiJer  it  a»  I'm'arai  and  wfnVoTO«.i'. 


I    29    ] 

jhe  weak  and  fcnipnloust.   And  the  in{\ance  of  Paul's 
circumcifing  Tmoiby,  in  condefcenfion  to  the  preju- 
dices of  the  Jews,  is' far  from  affording  an  example  of 
fiich  condefceniion  as  that  which  we  have  now  under 
conlideration.     Paul,  in  circumcifing   Timothy,   dif- 
penfed  with  no  divine  inftitution.     It  was  a  matter  of 
perfed  indifferency  in  itfelf,  whether  Timothy  were  cir- 
cumcifed  or  not,  as  circumcifion  was  then  aboUflieds 
but,   in  as  much  as  his  being  circumcifed  wouW  re- 
commend him  to  the  Jews,   Paul  confents  to  it  ;  it 
was  a  matter  of  as  much  indifferency  in  the  view  of 
Paul,  as  whether  Timothy  Ihould  be  <:loathed  in  black 
or  white.     He  facrificed  or  difpenfed  with  no  inftitu- 
tion,  in  condefcenfion  to  the  prejudices  of  the  Jews  ; 
he  only  gave  way  fo  far  to  their  prejudices,  as  to  make 
ufe  of  that  which  was  as  indifferent,  in  its  nature,  as 
any  thing  that  can  be  named.     I  truft,   it  muff  hence 
appear,  that  we  have  no  right  to  make  ufe  of  the  con- 
defcenfion that  is  now  plead  for  ;  v/e  ought  to  be  con- 
defcending  in  matters  of  indifferency,  yet  we  have  no 
rie-ht  to  difpenfe  with  divine  injii  tut  ions. 

^Although  what  has  been  faid  does  fufficiently  fliow, 
that  we  have  no  right  to  difpenfe  with  an  attendance 
upon  the  inftitution  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  there  is 
nothing  in  fcripture  that  warrants  it ;  and  fo  that  ten- 
dernejs  to  the  fcrupulous  does  by  no  means  require  it ; 
yet,  I  would  fuggeft  a  few  things  further,  which  may 
tend  to  give  further  conviction.     And, 

iff.  The  ftate  of  fuch  a  perfon  as  fcruples  his  quali- 
fications for  an  attendance  upon  the  Lord's  Supper, 
while  he  thinks  himfelf  qualified  to  receive  the  feal  of 
baptifm,  is  fuch  as  requires  a  very  different  kind  of 
treatment  from  indulging  and  condcfcending  to  grati- 
fy it. 

The  true  ftate  of  the  cafe  is  this,  the  perfon  is  in  an 
error  \  for  he  is  either  qualified  for  both  ordinances  or 

+  Se?  Rone.  ijiv. 


t      30      ] 

for  neither.  What  is  wanting,  in  this  cafe,  is  light 
and  inJini^lioTi.  Our  proper  bulinefs  is  to  teach  and 
inftrud  him."  To  begin  with  him  here  would  be  aim- 
ing at  the  difficulty  ;  it  would  be  acting  the  part  of 
IkiUful  ph)  ficians,  who  aim  at  the  difeaie,  or  like  fur- 
gcons  who  make  their  applications  directly  to  the 
wound.  And  I  cannot  think,  that  there  would  be  any 
great  difficulty  in  removing  r^.s'/ and /r^o/z^  fcruples, 
\vert  we  painful  and  laborious  in  our  endeavors.  But 
if  ^NC  are  fuperfjciai  and  eafily  glide  over  them,  we 
Ihall  rather  coniirm  than  remove  them.  This  mull 
be  the  only  proper  method  of  application.  Since  the 
perfon  is  really  in  an  error,  and  wants  light  and  in- 
ilruiilion,  it  muff  be  our  proper  bulinefs  to  communi- 
cate it  to  him  in  all  poffible  ways  i  the  nature  of  his 
cafe  calls  for  it.     Belides, 

2dly.  It  is  far  from  being  an  a6t  of  kindnefs  and  ten- 
dernefs  to  indulge  the  fcruples  of  fuch,  who  think 
themfelves  qualified  for  covenanting- and  baptifm,  and 
not  for  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  is  not  an  adl  of  kind- 
nefs to  the  fcrupulous. 

Indulging  fuch  fcruples,  has  a  direct  tendency  to 
confirm  them  ;  for  whatever  we  may  fay  about  their 
hzinggroundlefs^  we  by  indulging  them  fofar  as  to  ad- 
mit iHch  to  privileges,  do  in  faCl;  allow  them  all  the 
weight  oizveil-grounded  fcruples  :  And  it  will  be  more 
difficult  than  ever  to  convince  a  perfon  that  his  fcru- 
ples are  groundlefs,  if  a  church  adl  as  if  they  were 
well  founded.  Belides,  tolerating  fuch  fcruples  only 
makes  perfons  eafy  under  them.  After  their  fcruples 
are  indulged  and  their  children  are  baptifed,  they  are 
lefs  concerned  than  ever  to  remove  them  ;  and  one 
fpecial  motive  to  be  painful  and  laborious  in  making 
their  way  clear  to  the  table  of  the  Lord  is  removed, 
and  v>iU  never  have  any  more  influence.  Were  we 
aduated,  therefore  from  a  true  regard  to  the  real  in- 
tereft  of  the  fcrupulous,  we  fliould  never  indulge  fuch 
a  fcruple,  but  endeavor,  in  all  pollible  ways,  to  re- 
move it.     Again, 


[      31      ] 

3(117.  Another  thing  which  forbids  indulgence,  in 
the  cafe  under  confideration,  is  tiie  influence  it  would 
have  on  others. 

Indulgence  of  the  fcruple  under  confideration  is  not- 
only  without  a  warrant  from  fcripture,  and  injurious 
to  the  real  intereft  of  the  fcrupulous,  but  it  hurts 
others  ;  it  begets  juft  fuch  fcruples  in  the  minds  of 
others.  When  perfons  are  trained  up  under  a  prac- 
tice, which  makes  a  diftinction  between  the  two  ordi- 
nances^ it  naturally  and  almoft  unavoidably  leads  them 
to  think,  that  there  is  a  real  diftindion  ;  and  (o  mul- 
titudes grow  up  in  the  belief  of  it ;  thoufands  are 
taught  it  by  the  pradice,  who  would  never  have 
thought  of  any  diftindion,  had  not  the  pradice  in- 
ftilled  it  into  them  in  the  earlieft  part  of  life. 

When  perfons,  therefore,  think  themfelves  qualifi- 
ed for  covenanting  and  the  privilege  of  baptifm,  and 
yet  doubt  and  fcruple  their  qualifications  for  the 
Lord's  Supper,  inlfead  of  its  being  a  duty  and  an  ad 
of  kindnefs  to  grant  the  former  in  the  negled  of  the 
latter,  there  is  every  thing  forbids  it.  It  is  contrary 
to  the  real  intereft  of  the  fcrupulous  ;  it  has  a  bad  in- 
fluence on  others  :  And  to  difpenfe  with  inftitutions, 
in  condefcenlion  to  the  erroneous  fcruples  and  preju- 
dices of  men,  is  without  any  warrant  from  fcripture. 
The  fcripture  recommends  condefcenlion  to  the  weak^ 
nefs,  ignorance  and  prejudices  of  men,  fo  far  as  to 
make  indifferent  things  give  way,  but  no  where  does 
it  teach  us  to  facrifice  plain  and  exprefs  infiitutions  to 
them. 

9thly.  Another  thing  which  has  been  mentioned 
in  favor  of  the  pradice  of  owning  the  covenant,  is 
this  ;  That  if  perfons  fhould  come  to  the  Lord's  table 
and  be  unworthy  communicants,  their  guilt  would  be 
greater  than  if  they  had  only  owned  their  covenant, 
and  never  attended  upon  the  inftitution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper. 


[      3^      ] 

Reply.  What  is  now  u rged  is  rather  a  reafon,  why 
ijerfons  v,  ould  choofe  to  have  the  privilege  of  baptifm 
without  attending  upon  the  other  inftitution,  than  an" 
argument  that  it  is  the  will  of  God  they  fhould.  The 
cafe  is  the  fame  as  to  all  the  privileges  men  enjoy  ; — 
if  they  mifimprove  them,  their  guilt  and  condemna- 
tion will  be  enhanced  :  But  can  we  from  thence  infer; 
that  it  is  the  VviU  of  God,  that  men  fhould  turn  their 
backs  on  all  the  means  of  grace,  and  privileges  of  the 
gofpel  ?  If  perfons  fhould  oTe'?z /^f  <:oc'T//^;z/  in  an  un- 
worthy manner,  it  would  involve  them  in  greater  guilt 
than  if  they  had  never  profaned  the  covenant  :  But, 
can  we  from  thence  infer,  that  it  is  the  v/ill  of  God 
they  fhould  receive  baptifm  without  fo  much  as  own- 
ing the  covenant  ?  Certainly  we  cannot.  But  we. 
might  juft  a3  well  conclude,  that  it  is  the  will  of  God 
peifons  fhould  have  the  privilege  of  baptifm  without 
owning  the  covenant,  or  even  attending  to  one  infti- 
tuted  mean  of  grace,  as  that  it  is  God's  will  they 
fi'iould  have  fuch  a  privilege  in  a  negledl  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  on  account  of  the  fuperior  guilt  they  would 
incur  by  an  unworthy  attendance  upon  that  inftitu- 
tion ;  for  it  is  as  true,  that  a  mifimprovement  of  eve- 
jfy  gofpel  privilege,  enhances  the  guilt  of  men,  as  that 
tlieir  guilt  is  increafed  by  an  unworthy  attendance 
upon  the  Lord's  Supper. 

iiclidcs,  as  the  qualifications  for  covenanting  and 
the  Lord's  Supper  are  one  and  the  fame,  as  the  latter 
is  only  a  branch  or  a  duty  of  the  covenant,  fo  perfons 
liave  no  reafon  lo  fear  attending  upon  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, when  they  are  well  latisficd  refpe6ting  their  qua- 
lification for  covenanting.  I'here,  is,  therefore,  no  oc- 
calion  for  any  abatement  here,  in  as  much  as  the  qua- 
lihcations  are  the  fame  in  both  cafes.  If  it  fliould  be 
granted, that  a  perfon  would  incur  greater  guilt  by  at- 
tending upon  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  an  unworthy  man- 
ner, than  if  he  ihould  neglccl:  to  attend  upon  it,  and 
that  this  v»ere  a  fufhcienc  reafon  for  his  enjoying  bap-.' 


t       33       J 

tifm  ill  i  neglect  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  mull,  for 
the  fame  reafon,  view  it  as  a  duty,  to  grant  perfons 
the  privilege  of  baptifm,  without  {o  much  as  owning 
the  covenant,  or  even  attending  on  one  mean  ofgracc^ 
for  in  profaning  the  covenant  or  the  means  of  grace, 
they  would  incur  greater  guilt  than  if  they  had  never 
been  guilty  of  fuch  profanation.  So  that  what  is  here 
Urged  in  favor  t>f  owning  the  covenant  cannot  be 
viewed  as  any  reafon  for  it  ;  for  it  equally  excludes 
even  the  n.eceility  of  owning  the  covenant,  and  makes 
it  as  neeefiary  to  difpenfe  with  fbaf,  as  with  an  attend- 
ance upon  the  Lord's  Supper ;  for  it  is  as  true 
that  he  that  covenants  in  an  unworthy  manner  has 
greater  guilt  than  if  he  had  not  pretended  to  covenant 
at  all,  as  it  is,  that  he  that  communes  in  an  unworthy 
inanner,  incurs  greater  guilt  than  in  negledling  to  at- 
tend upon  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  and  if  it  be  a  fufficient 
reafon  for  excufing  perfons  in  the  latter  cafe,  it  mull 
be  in  the  former.  Again, 

lothly.  Some,  in  juftification  of  the  pradlice  of 
owning  the  covenant,  have  laid,  that  John  the  Baptift 
adminiftered  baptifm  in  his  day  ;  and  thofe  to  whom 
he  adminiftered  it,  certainly  did  not  attend  upon  the 
inllitution  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Reply.  In  the  days  of  John  the  BaptiH^the  Lord's 
Supper  was  not  inftituted,  and  fo  it  could  not  be 
viewed  as  a  covenant  duty,  or  a  negled:  of  it  a  defed: 
in  a  chrilHan  profelfion  :  But  the  cafe  is  very  elTen- 
tially  different  now,  lince  the  Lord's  Supper  is  infti- 
tuted and  made  an  incumbent  duty  on  all  profeffors 
of  chriftianity. 

iithly.  Another  thing,  which  is  of  great  weight 
with  many,  that  has  been  urged  in  favor  of  owning 
the  covenant  is  this,  that  if  this  pradlice  be  excluded, 
multitudes  of  children  will  be  unbaptifed,  and  in  at 
ftatc  of  heathenifm. 

Reply.  The  beft  truths  and  the  moft  reafonable 
inftitutioiis  may  be  abufed  ;  it  is  poffible  this  may; 

■     .     ;  E 


[       34       ] 

%iit  if  tbf  pra£li.ce  of  owning  the  covenant  be  nut  wicii.« 
ia  t]je  limus  of  divine  inrtitution,  we  are  not  at  liber- 
tjt'  t.p  aUer  and  lower  down  the  inftitution,  in  compli- 
^lic.e  with  the  tafte  and  incHnations  of  mankind.  If 
ijiea  cannot  find  it  in  their  hearts  to  receive  and  com- 
ply with  divine  inllitutions  ag-  they  come  from  God, 
we  rauft  not  alter  them  and  lower  them  down  to  their 
feimiQurs  and  inclinations.  We  may  not  warp  off 
j&-oro  di^fine  inftitutians.  fpr  the  fake  of  making  pro- 
feiytes.  It  would,  hawever,  he  a  rnattcr -o:^  juft  la- 
m^ntsdon  that  children  Ihould  be  unbaptifed,  hecaufe' 
^leir  parents  cannot  ftnd  it  in  their  hearts'  to  make  3 
complete  dedication  of  themfelves  to  God,  and  to  bear 
a  memorial  of  the  dying  love  of  the  Redeemer  ;  but  it 
ought  to.  be.  coniidered,  that  the  caufc  of  larrientation 
muft  arife  from  the  unreafomkh  Rate  of  men's  minds,- 
ai.\d  not  from  the  unreafonablenefs  and  feverity  of  fucli 
g.lt  inftitution,  as  makes  fuch  a  complete  dedication  of 
thcmfelves  mdifpenfably  necelTary  to  that  feal  of  the 
covenant. 

I2thly.  It  has  been  urged,  in  favour  of  the"  pfac- 
tice  oi-  owning  the  covenant,  that  if  none  may  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  ord'nance  of  baptifm,- unlefs  they  attend 
upon  tlic  Lord's  Supper,  men  will  rufh  o%  unprepar- 
ed, to.  the  table  of  thd  Lord. 

Repxy,  No  plan  can  be  anfwerable  for  the  abufes 
it  rimy  fuffer.  Ifperfons  will  rulh  on  unprepared  to 
die  Lord's  Supper,  for  the  fake  of  having  their  chil- 
dren.' baptifed,  they  muft  anfwer  for  their  raflmefs. 
The  fame  per fons  wrould  covenant  umvorthily  too,  for 
rhe'  feke  of  the  fame  privilege.  If  v/e  would  lower 
down  the  inftitution  {o  that  it  could  be  liable  to  na 
^hufe  from  the  iriconfideratenefs  or  raihnefs  of  men,- 
we  muft  iniift  on  no  qualifications  at  all.  If  mca  are 
fo  eager  to  obtain  baptifm,  as  is  fuppofed  in  what  is 
noAV  urged,  they  will  covenant  in  an  unworthy  man- 
ner to  obtain  it.  If  men  will  make  fuch  an  idol  of 
baptifm  as  to  rudi  "  upon  the  thick  bofles'.'  of  the 
Ijuckler  of  the  Moft  High  to  obtain  it,  they  muft  an- 


I     35      ] 

fwei  it  to  him.  If  we  would  efFedually  remove  ali 
danger  arifing  from  the  ralTinefs  and  inconliderate- 
nefs  of  meiij  we  muft  difpenfe  with  all  terms  and  qual- 
ifications ;  we  muft  not  even  retain  the  pradlice  of 
owning  the  covenant.  So  that  what  h  how  urged  is 
nothing  in  favour  of  owning  tlie  covenlKt,  Sn'd  catiildt 
be  vicJved  as  any  objedioh  to  its  exclulioti. 

i^thly.  In  fupport  of  the  praciiice  under  confide- 
rationi  it  has  been  further  faid  ;  That  people  onght  to 
be  encouraged  in  every  religious  motion.  If  they  can-- 
not  now  bind  themfelves  to  do  every  thin^^  yet  let 
them  proceed  as  far  as  they  can.  This  v^ill  ch'courag^ 
them  to  proceed  further ;  whereas,  if  thay  tha)'  Ii6t 
proceed  as  far  as  xht'ir  prefehi  tight  and  inclirtfttion  will 
admit,  they  will  be  difcouraged  from  doing  afty  thing. 

Reply.  It  is  readily  admitted,  thiit  every  reafoha^ 
ble  meafitre  ought  to  be  taken,  to  encotirage  tntti  to 
do  their  duty  ?  but  nothing  ought  to  be  done,  which 
iritJicates  that  they  are  fomething  which  they  $;fe  not. 

Baptifm  is  deligned  as  a  public  rnai  k  that  men  are 
chriftians  or  difciples.  It  Was  not  ddfigfied  to  itidi4 
cate  that  they  are  partly  fuch-^that  they  have  tdken 
Jofne  fteps  towards  it,  by  domg  fome  of  thi;  things  which 
^re  required  to  be  done  by  chriltians.  Were  there  any 
tnftituted  way  to  fignify,  how  far  perfons  have  pi'o- 
ceeded,  who  have  not  become  chriftiaris  altogether, 
in  pradtice,  fuch  align  nriighr,  with  propriety,  t'^uled  ; 
but  there  is  thegreat^ft  inipropriety,  in  uting  a  mark 
or  lig-n,  which  indicates,  that  the  perfons  on  \*/hom  it 
is  fet,  have  become  chrjfiians  in  fully  When,  in  facl, 
they  have  only  advanced  fome  fleps  tovvafds  it.  There- 
in the  iriconliftency  of  the  practice  under  cohlidera- 
tion  appears  ;  for  in  the  adminiftra>lion  of  baptifni; 
According  to  it,  a  public  mark  is  itt,  of  perfons  be- 
coming chriftians,  when  in  reality  they  have  only  tak- 
en fome  fteps  towards  it.  Nov/,  although  it  be  true, 
that  religious  motions  arc  to  be  properly  encouraged  ; 
yet  it  is  perfectly  imreafonable,  that  we  fhould  fet  the 
mark  of  their  having  bec&me  chriftians  in  /«//,  whert 


[      36      3 

in  fad,  accordingr  to  what  i3  fupppfed  in  wliat  is  now 
urged,  they  have  only  fet  out  to  do /nnelhing. huinox  all 
that  which  is  required  of  chrillians.  This  would  be 
impoiing  on  the  chriftian  world,  for  the  fake  of  en- 
couraging individuals,  to  make  further  progrefs  to- 
wards being  real  chriflians.  Baptifrn  was  not  defign- 
ed  as  an  encoumgemenl  to  men  to  become  chriflians,  but 
as  a  pofitive  mark  that  they  are  already  fuch.  So  that 
no  argument  for  the  pradice  can  be  derived  from 
whac  is  now  urged, — there  is  no  te^fon  for  the  pradiice 
in  that  view  of  it ;  but  the  higheft  iinpropricty,  as  the 
defign  of  baptifm  is  to  fignify,  that  perfons  tuc  already. 
chriflians,  not  that  they  have  rcvAdtfome  niotions  anj 
taken  fome  fteps  towards  it. 

Befides,  granting  chriftian  privileges  before  men 
get  to  be  really  chriflians  does  not  tend  in  the  leaft, 
to  encourage  them  to  ftrive  for  further  attainments  ; 
but  the  reyerfe;  If  perfons  are  admitted  to  chrijlian, 
privileges  fhort  of  their  being  fully  chriflians,  they 
have  nothing  further,  of  that  nature  to  induce  thern 
to  make  further  advances.  If  the  privileges  and  im-. 
munities  of  a  civil  community  were  reftrided  to  fuch 
as  are,  in  all  refpeds,  loyal,  there  would  be  the  ftrong- 
eft  inducements  to  loyalty,  in  the  view  of  all  fuch  as 
■were  defirous  of  fharing  in  thofe  honors  and  privi- 
leges ;  but  if,  on  the  contrary,  thofe  who  are  loyal  in 
feme  refpeds  only,  may  fliare  in  them,  as  well  as  fthofe 
who  keep  all  the  laws  of  the  community,  what  induce- 
ments to  loyalty,  are  there  remaining,  which  arife 
from  a  defire  of  iliaring  in  thofe  privileges  ? 

It  mufl  be  thus,  in  the  cafe  under  confideration. 
If  chriftian  privileges  may  be  adminiftered  to  fuch 
only  as  becom.e  chriflians  in  full,  there  is,  every  in- 
ducement to  become  llich  ;  but  if  fuch  privileges 
may  be  conferred  on  fuch,  as  are  only  fuppofed  to  have 
Xdktnfome  fteps  towards  it,  what  inducement  is  left 
to  fuch  perfons,  to  make  further- progrefs,  arifing  frorT> 
a  defire  of  enjoying  chriftian  privileges  ?  They  have 
already  attained  ihcni. 


t      37      1 

Further  acquirements  are  not  neccfiary  in  this  view 
pf  it — They  have  nothing  further  lo  expcd — They 
fan  obtain  all  fuch  privileges  >vith  their  prcfent  ac- 
guircmentg. 

It  is  certain,  therefore,  that  the  pradlice  of  owning 
the  covenant  is  not  necellary,  as  an  inducement  to 
thofe  perfons  to"  make  further  progrefs  in  rehgion, 
who  cannot  bind  themfelves  to  aii  attendance  on  all 
phriftian  duties.  It  is  io  far  from  haying  a  tendency 
to  it,  as  thaMt  has  a  inoil  natural  tendency  to  induce 
them  to  rcll  eafy  with  prefent  acquirejnents  ;  for  if 
they  are  fulhcient  to  entitle  to  chrillian  privileges,  the 
inducement  tg  ftrive  for  fomething  further  is  remov- 
ed. But  if,  on  the  contrary,  chrirtian  privileges  are 
reftrided  to.  thofe,  who  |liall  attend  to  all  the  com- 
mands pf  Chrifi,  all  the  original  moti\ts,  to  induce 
perfons  rp  make  prpfacicncy  in  religious  acquirements, 
do  remain  in  full  force. 

There  muft,  certainly,  be  the  higheft  impropriety, 
jn  fixing  the  mark  of  chiillians  \nfull  on  fuch,  as  are 
pnly  chriftians  in  part  ;  i.  e.  to  fuch  as  only  fee  their 
way  clear  to  attend  to  fovie  pnrt  of  their  duty.  As  has 
already  been  obfcrved,,  if  there  were  any  inflituted 
fnark,  which  wa-s  defigned  to  lignify,  how  many  Heps 
a  perfon  had  taken  towards  being  a  chriftian  in  full, 
there  might  be  a  propriety  in  making  ufe  of  it,  when 
perfons  had  begun  and  taken  fome  fieps  towards  be- 
ing fuch  ;  butinafmuch  as  baptifm  is  defigned  to  fig- 
nify,  that  perfons  are  already  chriflians,  fo  there  is  2 
manifeft  impropriety  in  adniiniftering  it  to  perfons 
who  have  only  fet  out  and  taken  fome  Reps,  iliort  of 
the  whole,  towar-ds  it. 

On  the  Vjhole,  I  think  it  as  evident  as  a  truth  can 
.well  be,  that  there  is  no  propriety  in  the  practice, 
when  the  nature  of  it  is  conlidered  :  and  it  is  equally 
evident,  that  it  is  not  necelTary  as  an  inducement  to 
perfons  to  make  further  progrefs  in  religious  acquire- 
ments :  but  on  the  contrary,  that  it  has  a  direct  ten^ 
dency  to  induce  them  to  reft  eafy  with  prefent  attain^ 


C     38     ] 

merits  ;  becaufe,  on  that  plan,  they  can  have  all  the 
privileges  they  ({ciiie  or  alk  for,  v/ith  the  progrefs  and 
attainments  they  have  already  made.  So  chat  what  is 
now  urged  affords  not  the  Jeaft  argument  for  the  prac- 
tice ;  it  is  rather  a  weighty  rcafon  for  its  abolition. 

I  have  now  taken  notice  of  every  thing  that  I  can 
f^colled  to  have  heard  offered  in  favor  of  the  pradice 
bf  o\Vning  the  covenant ;  I  would  now  delire  you  to 
take  what  has  been  faid  mto/erious  confideratiori,  and 
to  judge  upon  it  with  impaiiidlify,  ^*  Search  the 
fcriptures"  to  fee  if  things  be  not  really  fo  ;  and  re- 
member that  you  arc  accountable  for  your  faith  as  well 
as  your  pradice,  I  fiiall  now  proceed  as  was  pro- 
pofed, 

il.  To  exhibit  a  number  of  things  to  view,  which 
fhow  the  unftriptural  nature  of  the  pradlice  of  ozvm'ng 
the  cov€nant ;   and  vThy  it  ought  to  be  abolilhed. 

I  would  alk  your  ferious  attention  to  what  will  now 
be  offered,  and  hope  you  will  exercife  ail  that  impar- 
tialty  which  becomes  accountable  creatures,  when  -^^ 
lending  to  matters  that  are  intimately  connedted  witli 
fhe  wcUlire  of  Chrift's  kingdom  in  the  world. 

In  replying  to  the  various  things  which  have  been 
urged  in  favor  of  the  practice,  I  have  had  occafioh  to 
totich  on  the  principal  things,  which  I  have  in  mf 
mind  againft  it ;  fo  that  much  lefs  enlargement  will 
now  be  made,  on  many  things  that  will  be  fuggeiled^ 
than  would  othcrwife  have  been  necellary.  And  it  i'S 
hoped,  that  what  has  been  faid  will  be  carefully  re- 
membered.    I  nov/  proceed  to  fay, 

iff.  Th-at  one  reafoii  which  has  great  weight  in  my 
mind,  for  the  abolition  of  the  pradlice  of  adminiffcring 
baptifm  to  the  feed  of  fuch  parents,  who  profeflfediy 
and  pradically  withhold  their  attendance  upon  thefa- 
cramenc  of  the  Lord' 5  Supper,  is  this,  it  does  not  ap- 
pear thu:  the  apoftles  were  in  it. 

It  docs  not  appear  from  any  thing  the  ap^fflesT^'^f 
or  did  that  they  were  acquainted  with  fuch  a  pra<5lice, 
I  am  fenfible,  that  in  feme  inftances'^  k  is  not  faid  thai;. 


t      39      1 

tfiofe  who  were  baptifed,  fuch  as  the  Eunuch,  Covnclm 
and  others,  were  holdcn  to  an  attendance  upon  the  in- 
ftitution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  yet  there  is  as  much 
faid  refpeding  that  inftitution  as  any  other  chriftiait 
duty  ;  and  we  have  as  much  reafon  to  believe,  that  the 
apofties  confidercd  them  as  holden  to  attend  upon  the 
i4iftitution  of  the  i>ord's  Supper,  as  often  as  they 
Ihould  have  opportunity,  as  upon  zwy  one  chriftian  du- 
ty; We  may  as  well  fuppofe,  that  fome^w  horn  the 
apol^les  admitted  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  were  to^ 
a-ttertd  on  no  one  chriflian  duty,  as  that  they  were  not 
to  attend  on  the  inlHtution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  j  for, 
in  the  cafes  juft  mentioned,  there  is  as  much  mention 
made  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  any  other  duty. — It  is  no' 
where  faid,  that  they  did  tolerate  adults  inanomiffion 
^f  the  Lord*s  Supper. — What  reafon,  therefore,  have 
we  to  conclude  they  did  praclife  fuch  a  toleration  ? 
Such  a  conclulion  mufl  be  altogether  arbitrary.  Some 
1^'ho  have  been  profelTed  advocates  for  the  practice  of 
owning  the  covenant,  have  acknowledged  it  as  an  un- 
doubted fact,  that  all  the  difciples  (in  the  apofties 
days)  did  attend  upon  the  memorial  of  Chrift's  death.- 
Gne,  in  particular,  when  fpcaking  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, fays,  "  This  was  an  ordinance  appointed  for  the: 
^hole  body  of  Chrift's  vilible  church  to  attend  upon,; 
who  profeffed  the  chriftian  faith.  And  accordingly 
they  thus  pradifed  in  the  apofties'  days,  as  all  their 
difciples  attended  upon  this  memorialf."  Others 
have  looked  upon  it  very  doubtful,  whether  the  prac- 
tice'of  owning  the  covenant  be  agreeable  to  the  pra6lice 
«)fthe  apofties ;  or  within  the  limits  of  divine  inftitu- 
tion  ;  for,  it  cannot  other  wife  be  accounted  for,  that 
fome  fhould  fay,  they  are  not  for  the  practice  whiK^ 
they  <«re  in  it  ;  and  another,  tliat  fcarcely  one  minifter 
in  the  nation  is  pleafed  with  it. 

Now,  unlefs  there  be  fuflicient  evidence,  that  the 
pradice  of  admitting  perfons  to  the  privilege  of  bap« 

+  Ely's  Sersa.  p.  34, 


■  t      ^o       ] 

tifni,  Mho  profelTedly  ahdpradically  withhold  tliefr 
atiendancc  upon  the  inftitution  of  the  Lord's  Supper; 
war.  known  to  the^  apoftles,  what  reafon  can  be  otFered 
for  the  pradice  now  ?  Were  not  the  apoftles  fufficient- 
\y  condcfccnding  ?  Or,  is  it  more  neceffary  now  thaii 
in  the  apoftles  days  ?  That  cannot  be  pretended  ;  for 
if  it  were  ever  ncceflajy,  it  was  then,  when  the  difci- 
pies  they  made  emerged  cut  of  a  ftate  of  heathenifm, 
and  had  not  th-e  advantages  of  a  religious  education 
from  the  carlieft  days  of  childhood.  If  the  apoflles 
were  in  the  pradice  of  owning  the  covenant,  as  now 
under  confidcration,  it  would  have  appeared  from 
ibme  thing  they  faid  of  did  :  but  it  is  no  more  evi- 
dent that  they  tolerated  their  difciples  in  an  omifHon 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  than  any  other  duty.  And  it  is 
certain^  if  the  apoftles  were  not  in  that  pradlice,  we 
have  no  kind  of  warrant  for  it ;  for  they  were  certain-' 
ly  as  well  acquainted  with  the  will  of  Ghrift  as  we  can 
pretend  to  be.  And  among  all  the  inltances  of  their 
condeicenfion,  it  does  not  appear,  that  they  ever  made 
any  law  or  inftitution  of  Chrift's  kingdom  give  way  to 
the  weaknefs,  fcruples  or  prejudices  of  mankind. 

2dly.  Another  reafon  for  the  abolition  of  the  prac- 
tice of  owning  the  covenant,  or  adminiftering  baptifm 
to  Rich  adults  as  withhold  thdir  attendance  upon  the 
facrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  this,  it  is  in  a  de- 
gree a  perverfion  of  the  end  and  defign  of  baptifm^ 

If  we  are  to  form  our  notions  concerning  the  end 
and  defign  of  baptifm,  from  the  ufe  and  deiign  of  cir- 
Gumciilon,  we  muft  view  it  as  a  mark  and  token  oi  the 
covenant.*  It  is  not  a  token  of  a  jf^^r//^/ covenant  j 
but  that  a  perfon  \^full  in  the  covenant,  or  under  en-i 
gagemsnts  to  do  all  covenant  duties^  Now,  baptifm,^ 
when  adminiftered  to  fucb,  who  do  not  mean  to  en- 
gage to  r^tend  upon  ^//the  dunes  of  the  covenant,  and 
arc  not  uiiderflood  as  engagino-  this,  cannot  with  any 
propriety  be  ufed  as  a  feal  or  loken  of  the  zihole  cove- 
nant ;   for  the  perfon  is  woi  full  in  the  covenant ;   or 

■*  Gen.  xvii.  ii. 


t       41       j 

-vvhich  is  the  fame  thing,  he  is  not  imdcr  crtgagdiiiems 
to  do  or  attend  upon  all  the  duties  of  the  covenant. — 
The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  covenant  duty ;  but  fuch  as  own 
the  covenant,  as  now  under  confideration,  do  not  mean 
toengageto  do  this,ortoUve  in  the  obiervation  of  that 
inftitution  :  Their  covenant  is  therefore  partial,;  it 
does  not  extend  to  ali  the  duties  of  the  covenant. — . 
There  is  therefore  this  inconliftency  in  adminiftering 
baptifm  to  fuch  as  only  make  fuch  a  covenant,  it  fixes 
that  which  was  defigned  and  intended  as  a  mark  of  the 
•whole  covenant,  to  a  covenant  which  is  Jhori  of  the 
whole  ;  that  is,  to  a  covenant  which  does  not  include 
-complete  fubjedtion.f  It  may  be  fa  id,  that  the  perfon 
who  enters  into  covenant,  maiy  fuppofe  that  he  engages 
every  thing  that  is  required  of  him  j  yet,  inafmuch  as: 
-he  really  does  not,  we  ought  rather  to  let  him  right, 
than  to  rriifufe  the  feal,  or  in  any  mxafure  pervert  the 
endand  deiign  of  baprifrh.     Again, 

3dly.  If  we  may  infer  any  ihing,  concerning  the 
pradice  now  under  confideration,  from  the  laws  and 
rules  which  God  gave  his  church,  under  the  Jewifh 
difpenfation,it  mufl  be  this,  that  it  ought  to  be  abolifh- 
ed. 

The  rules  and  laws  which  God  gave  his  church,un-. 
der  thfe  former  difpenfation,  did  not  admit  of  a  prac- 
tice of  chat  nature  ;  for  it  was  exprefsly  ordered,  that 
he  who  kept  not  the  pafTover,  fliould  be  cut  off  from 
from  his  people.  There  was  no  toleration  of  fuch  a 
Begied  or  omiffion.     It  is  true,   if  a  Jew  fhould  hap-i 

f  Some  fcem  to  infift  upon  it,  that  the  coveftant  fuch  make  who  own  the 
covenant,  as  'tis  called,  is  full  and  compi'^te  ;  but  it  is  certain  they  do  not  en- 
gage to  attend  upon  all  chriflian  duties  ;  their  Covenant  does  not  extend  to  alt 
covenant  duties  ;  or  fo  far  as  the  covenant  of  other  profeffors.  It  may  be 
granted,  it  is- not,  ftri£tly  fpeaking,  a.  half-way  covenant ;  but  it  can't  be  pre- 
tended that  it  \sfuUznd  complete,  for  if  omitting  one  covenant  duty  does  not 
render  a  covenant  incomplete,  omitting  two  does  not ;  and  if  omitting  two 
does  not,  then  omitting  all  covenant  duties  would  not.  I  am  unable  to  con- 
ceive what  we  are  to  underftand  by  a  complete  covenant,  unlefs  it  be  an  en- 
gagement to  do  all  the  duties  ofthe  covenant :  And  if  this  be  what  we  arc 
to  underftand  by  it,  then  fuch  as  do  not  enRage  to  do  ali  tb«  d^itiej  of  tfaccoVj 
enaiit,  arc  not  jn  a  complete  covenant  ftanding, 

F 


t       42       3 

ptn  -fo  'be  undean  or  on  a  diftant  yonrney  ^t  thsHifrO: 
the  paffover  was  to  be  kept,  he  was  tolerated  in 
m  omifrioh  of  it  untii  the  next  month  ;  but  not  till  thfe 
^ext  annuul  letuin  of  the  paffover,  on  any  pretence 
-\v'hatev€r.  'i  hat  conllitution  did  not  admit  one  to  a* 
.landing  in  the  church,  or  ainong  God's  people,  who' 
)ived  in  a  neglect  of  me  public  inftitution.f  Some 
will  faV; perhaps,  that  when  it  is  faid  thathethat  **  for- 
beareth  to  keep  the  paiTover"  fhall  be  cut  off  from  his 
.jpeople,  it  is  meant  one,  who  fliall  negledl:  to  keep  it 
out  a^jJigbfand  conlempt  i  but  with  much  greater  rea-- 
•foil  it  may  be  faid,that  it  meant  every  perfon,  who  for 
any  reason  whatever  fi=iouM  live  in  an  habitual  omif^ 
-fion  of  that  inftitution;  for  there  is  no  diftindionf 
jnade  :  and  the  whole  account  teaches  us,  that  no  exv 
Guie  or  apology  could  be  offered,  excepting  defile- 
ihcnt  or  being  on  a  diffant  journey,' and  that  was  con- 
fidered  as  a  fufiicient  excufe,-  only  for  an  occalioiiaf 
omiflion  ^  or  delaying  to  keep  it  for  one  month,- 
*rhere  is  fomcthing  very  ffriking  and  figmftca^t,  i«' 
i&od's  making  fuch  fpecial  pr-ovilion  for  fuch  as  eoul^ 
not  keep  the  paffover  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  firft 
month  :  God's  making  it  neceffary  to  keep  it  by  them*-^ 
felvcs,  on  the  fourteentti  day  of  the  next  month,-  evi- 
dently teaches  us,  that  God  did  inffft  upon  it  that  fuck 
as  had  a  Handing  in  his  church,  or  among  his  coYtn*- 
ant  people,  fhould  by  no  means  live  in  a  negle6t  or 
omiffion  of  one  capital  inl^itution.  So  that  if  we  may 
colled:  aay  thing  from  the  conflitutioh  of  the  Jewifli 
church;'  refpe-dling  the  practice  of  owning  the  coven- 
ant, it  is  this  :  that  it  ought  never  to  have  been  in- 
troduced ;.  arnd  fo  ought  now  to  be  abolifhed. 

4thly.  Another  reafon  for  the  abolition  of  the  prac* 
tice  of  owning  the  covenant  is,  its  contrariety  to  the 
plain  fenfe  and  meaning  of  the  commiffion  which 
Ghrift  gave  his  apoftksj,  when  he  fent  them  forth  tcr 
feftptife. 

The  commiffion  which  Ghrifl  gave  his  apoftles  was 

+  Nam,  1x.  1—13. 


€      +3      ] 

i^preffed  in  theft  words  :  "  Go  ye  therefore,  andteadi: 
^U  nations,  baptifing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Sob,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ; — teaxhm^ 
0fim  to.  abjervf  all  things  whatfoever  I  l^rve  conwianded, 
y9U'"X  Now  the  moft  plain  and  obvious  itveanihg  of 
this  coramiffioii  is  tJiis  : — '*  Go  ye  and  teach  all  na- 
^on^,"  that  is.  Jews  and  Gentiles  ;-— teach  them  the 
n9Au;e  and  duties  of  the  Chriiiian  religion : — And 
having  led  them  to  an  underftanding  of  them  things^ 
j^  atiy  ihould  he  fo  far  convinced  of  their  reality,  im^- 
portance  and  excellency  as  to  be  delirous  of  embrace 
iog  and  etigaging  in  my  caufe  and  fcrvice,  do  you  bap-, 
tife  them,  or  fet  upon  them  the  mark  of  my  followers 
and  fubj.^dls :  But,  in  the  mean  time,  do  you  infift  up- 
jon.it,  that  thoy-  *-^  obferve  all  tkaigs  what fim^er- 1  have. 
fim)nmt}iedyo%  /'—that  they  liv^  in:  t lie  practice  of  all 
the  duties  of  the  chriftian  religion  ;  for,  1  would  not; 
hftve;  you  fet  the  mark  belonging  to  my  fiibjecls,  upon 
jBich  a,s  live,  in.  the  aeglecl  of  the  things  \\4iich  \  h^V^ 
jcommanded  and  enjoined  ;  or  upon  fuch  as-  a^'e  not 
IB$:aUy  fubjed:  to  my  will,  as  ligniilcd  in  mycorpmands 
an;d  inftitutions.— Thia  is-  the  moft  plain  and  natural 
igaapart  of  the  commiliion.  And,  wi-thout  any  fiirther 
fipnam.cnt  upon  it,  it  muft  appear  to  be  dire(illy  op- 
pofed  to  the  practice  of  owning  the  covenant,  whicli 
gdmits  thofe  to  baptifm,  who  do  not  mean  to  beuiider- 
ftood  to  engage  an  attendance  upon  a  plain  comriiand- 
ed  duty, and  are  not  conlidered  by  others  as  cen&rablq 
im  a  neglect. 

*'5thly.  Another  reafon  for  the  excluiion  of  the 
praAicc  of  owning  the  covenant  is  this :  It  ftands  op,-- 
ppfed  to  the  wilt  of  Chriil,  as  fignilied  in  the  inftitu- 
tion  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  ordinance  of  the  tord's  Supper  is  not  to  bi6 
YJewed,  merely  as.  a  privilege  which  men  may  enjoy, 
but  it  ought  to  be  confjdered  as  a  duty  which  is  in^ 
curabent  on  difciples,  as  fuch.     The  direction,  "  D^i 

I  Malt,  xxviii.  ^^^  %q. 


[       44       3 

ye  this  in  rememhrance  of  me,"  was  defigned  for  fome 
body  :-— And  to  whom  did  our  Saviour  diredhimfelf^ 
excepting  his  difcifles  f— And,  are  notaduhs,  who  en- 
joy the  feal  of  the  covenant,  difciples  ?  Don't  the 
church  conliderthem  as  fuch,  when  they  grant  them 
the  feal  of  baptifm  ?  They  moft  ccrtamly  do.  They 
are,  therefore,  the  very  perfons  to  whom  our  Saviour 
direds  himfelf,  when  he  fays,  '' Do  ye  this  in  remem- 
Iranceofme:'  This  ihows  that  the  will  ofChriR,  as 
lign.ficd  and  expreffed  in  the  inftitution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  is  of  a  very  different  import  from  that 
pradice,  which  difpenfes  with  their  attendance  upon 
it ;  and  that  fuch  a  pradice  ftands  diredlly  oppofed  to 
Chrilt's  will  as  fignitied  in  that  inftitution  ;  for  there- 
in Chrift  fays,  do  ye  this,  &c.  but  this  pradice  effcn- 
tiaily  confiils  in  difpeniing  with  an  attendance  upon 
it.  Again, 

6thly.  The  pradige  of  owning  the  covenant  is  un- 
juftifiable,  as  it  builds  up  one  ordinance  at  the  expence 
of  another. 

The  pradice  of  owningthecovenant,if  it  were  made 
perfed,  would  flrip  the  communion  table  ofguefts. 
The  more  it  is  pradtifed,  the  fmaller  is  the  number  of 
thofe  who  bear  a  memorial  of  Chrift's  love.  The  plain 
language  of  it  is,  it  is  better  that  the  great  Redeemer 
Ihould  be  without  a  memorial,  than  that  worms  of  the 
duit  iliould  be  without  the  feal  of  the  covenant  !  The 
pradice  effentially  confifts  in  difpenfing  v/ith  an  at- 
tendance upon   the  inftituted    memorial  of  Chrift's 
dea:h,  in  order  to  perfons  enjoying  the  feal  of  the  cov- 
enant, or  the  privilege  of  baptifm.     The  Lord's  Sup- 
per  is    fubordinated   to    the   ordinance   of   baptifni 
by  this  practice.     The  memorial  of  Chrift's  death, 
is,  as  it  were,  let  afide,  tliat  men  may  enjoy  the  feal  of 
baj-tiim.     it  is  more  than  pofiible,  that  in  procefs  of 
time,  tnis  pradice  will    lit  ip  the  communion  table  of 
guefts.     It  is  a  fad  which  cannot  be.  difputed,  that 
owning  the  covenant  is  a  place  in  which  men  are  ex- 
(:eedingiy  inclined  to  reft  eafy  ;  and  it  is  equally  true^ 


[       45       ] 

that  the  people  in  fuch  places  where  the  pradice  has 
obtained,  and  is  not  fcrupled,  run  more  and  more  into 
it.  And,  the  practice  ot"  o\^  ning  the  covenant,  on  the 
uhole,  tiourjilies  and  thrives  en  the  ruins  of  the  other 
inftitution  ;  the  one  is  built  up  on  the  ruins  of  the 
orher  :  And  in  this  view  of  it,  it  is  altogether  unjufti- 
fiable  ;  as  we  have' no  right  or  warianc  to  fet  the  or- 
dmances  of  Chrift  at  variance  with  each  other. 

7ihly.  Another  reafon  for  the  exclunon  of  the 
practice  of  ownmg  the  covenant  is,  it  lets  up  an  un- 
warrantable aiftmction  amon^^  profcffed  Chnftians. 

The  Icriptu^es  conlidcr  Chriftians  as  being  oi one 
denomination  ;  not  as  Chriitians  in  part  and  Chrifti-' 
ans  my«//.  They  conlidcr  all  profelfors,  I  mean  a- 
duks,  as  having  one  faith,  07ie  Lord,  one  baptifm,  &c.* 
And  theapoftles  always  addreffed  them  as  being  of  o;?;? 
denomination.  But  the  practice  of  ovv'ning  the  cove- 
nant makes  different  denominations  of  chriifians. 
Thofe  who  ozvn  the  covenant  do  not  mean  to  engage  lo 
do  fo  much  as  other  profeffed  Chriftians  do  ;  they  do 
not  mean  to  engage  an  attendance  upon  one  plain  and 
importan;:  inftitution  ;  neither  do  fuch  as  admit  them 
underftand  them  as  engaging  to  do  it,  or  difciplinable 
if  ^hey  Bcgle6t  it.  So  that  there  is  really  a  diiierence. 
made  by  that  pradtice  among  profefibrs  ;  and  fuch  a, 
difference  too,  as  is  not  warranted  by  any  thing  reveal- 
ed in  the  fcripturcs  :  And,  for  this  reafon,  it  is  a  prac- 
tice that  ought  to  be  abGlifned. 

8thly.  The  practice  of  owning  the  covenant  is  ab- 
folutely  unneccjfary  upon  the  principles  of  thcgofpel. 

The  qualifications  for  baptifm  and  the  Lords  Sup- 
per are  really  one  and  the  A77/;r.  Perfons  m.uft  be  in 
covenant  in  order  to  baptii'm  :  And  being  in  the  cov- 
enant cerfainh  qualifies  for  all  covenant  duties  and 
privileges.  And  there  can  be  no  greater  or  more  folemn 
tranfadtion,  thaii  for  crearures  to  covenant  with  their 
great  Creator,  it  is  true,  indeed,  if  perfons  mean  no 
more  by  co\enanting  than  to  appear  well,  cyAernaUy^ 
there  is  no  great  foleminity  in  it ;  but  if  they  mean  to 

*  Eph.  iv.    4-6, 


f       46       J 

give  xvp  themfeWe^  to  G«4  to  be  his,  and  ie»  itjedv^ 
Jiim  a:?,  tlieir  God,  and  confider  Govenaming  as:  inaply- 
jQg  a  heart  correfppnding  with  tke  words  of  the  coy-.^ 
tnaat.u  is  not  onl)  folemn,  butit  implies  qv^ry  thii^g- 
requii;te  to  an  '  acceptable  difcharge  of  all  Chriltui^; 
duties. 

'  Beiidcs^  covenating^  in  its  nature^  ipnplie^  i?  if  m 
engagement  to  do  all  cov.enant  duties-  j  for  wha,t  d<^ 
we  rnican  by  covenanting,  except  it  be  engaging-  to  do 
the  duties  of  the  covenant  ?  And  the  Lord's  Supper  15- 
oiie  plain  duty  of  the  Govetiant. — The  quali&atioii^- 
iQV  baptifni  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  therefore,  being 
one  and  the  iarne,  as  they  are  both  cpyenant  dutie^, 
there  can  be,  on  the  principles  of  the  g<)^el^  np.  n^;Ce^- 
&y  for  the  pra'itipe  of  owning  thecpyenant ;  ar^  asig 
i^  'ur^ieceifary  on  gofpel  prin.ciplqs^  it  ought,  to  b^ 
yie;v,edfp  on  every  principle,  and:  fp  to  be  abphfb.<?dr. 

'  Again, 

9thly.  Another  reafon  y/hich  I  woul4,  ojfter  fof  t^hjp 
s^bolition  of  the  practice  of  owning  the  coven.^nt  i^ 
thia :  It  is  built  upon  a  principle  which  canupt,  go^- 
itftently^  flop  lliprt  of  difp€nling^^-ith^U  ehril^iaji.dihr 
tl.es. 

t  ^T>  unable  to  fee  what  right:  pr  Wiarraiiit  a-  chuFcfct 
has  to  tolerate  a.  perfon  in  the  neglect  of  the-  Lord's^ 
Supper,  rather  than  in  a  negiedpf  any  other  dt^iy.  The, 
priiiciple  upon  w:hich  the  pradlice  is  founded;  is  this; :, 
That  fcrupulous  confcieaccs  muft  be  iiifhilge-d  ;  but; 
if  they  mull  be  indulged  fo  fara^tp  difpenlc  witji  di- 
ving inftitutions.  for  their  fake,  where  w-ill  the  pr-incU 
pie  end  ?  If  one  fcruple  mult  be  fp  far  indulged,  \yhy 
not  another  ?  If  aperfon  m.ay  be  viewed  and  treatei^ 
as.  in,  good  ftanding  in  the  negled  of  the  Lprd's  $up-, 
per,  why  npt  for  the  fame  reafon  in  tlie  negle.di  of  an^j; 
(^herdftty  ?  Here  is  one  has  doubts,  and  fcrupies  ref-* 
peeling,  the  cioctrine  of  origiriid  lin  ; — another  ha^i 
dpuhts  rtfpeding  the  divinity  of  Chrift  :;— a,  thh-c|  ha% 
fc;rupli;s  about  the  Chriftian  Sabibiith  ;— a  fourth  per-- 
jji^d^ubLi  whether,  thq-e  b?  %fly  Sal^tjatl^  a;iiali;  N^w^ 


t      47       ] 

i^hy  may  we -not  tolerate  all  thefe  doubts,  and  a  tfe^ijit 
fand  more,  fo  far  a5  to  give  up  the  neceility  of  a  beisf^ 
of  thofe  dottrines,  and  the  pradice  of  thofe  duties.  Is 
-jvell  as  the  fcrapie  refpecting  the  Lord's  Sapper? 
Why  may  not  a  church  tolerate  one  negiecfl  m  one 
^erfon,  anoth^er  neglecft  in  another  perfon,  and  fo  ori 
tiil  they  toltrrare,  among  tJiem  alt,  a  neglect  ofever^ 
duty  of  the  Chriftian  religion,  as  well  as:  a  negfett  c^ 
the  Lord'^  Supper  ?  If  we  once  begin  to  difpcnlc  with 
kn  attendance  upon  divine  inftitutions,  on  account  o5f 
erroneous  fci-uples,  I  know  not  wheie  we  can  fix  thoft 
Aice  bounds  which  may-  not  be  fuperccded.  I  sih  uft- 
able  to  fee,  why  other  ordinances  mufl  not  give  way  to 
fcruples,  as  well  a*s  the  Lord's  Supper.  Is  the  Lord's 
•Sujpper  fo  ummportant  an  inlliitution,  as  that  mtti 
h\2.y  be  good  chriftians  in  the  negied  of  it,  and  not  ia 
the  negltd: of  other  duties  ?  Why  Ihould  this  be  almoil 
the  only  ncgled  which  can  be  tolerated  ? — Theprincipk 
on  v/hich  the  pradice  of  o\vning  the  covenant  is  built, 
i-f  purlued,  muft  make  thorough  work  ivith  chriftian 
duties.  If  we  once  begin  to  difpenfe  with  chriftian  du^ 
ties,  or  an  attendance  upon  them,  on  account  of-eh'a^ 
neons  fcrupies,  I  cannot  fee  where  we  may  conllfleiitly 
ftop.  Furthermore, 

I  othly.  The  confequences  of  which  the  praclice  of 
Owning  the  covenant  is  produdtive,  fhow  the  iiTipor- 
tance  af  its  being  abolifhed. 

Could  we  not  fee  ^rry  bad  confequences  dBowing  froM 
ft,  yet,  inafmuch  as  there  appears  no  room  in  the  insti- 
tution for  it,^ — as  it  is  not  fupported  by  the  practice  df 
■the  apoftles,  and  the  principle  on  which  it  is  built  4s 
fubverfive  of  all  chriftian  duties,  it  ought  to  be  exd^a:- 
ded.  But  the  practice  is,  moft  manifeftly,  produdtivt 
of  many  bad  confequences. 

I  ftly.  It  naturally  leads  men  to  think,  that  in  tm>^ 
eaanting  with  God,  there  is  very  little  folemnity. 

This  praftice  leads  people  to  think,  that  it  is  a/;W/ 
matter  to  covenant  ; — tliat  the  obligations  on  fuch  as 
only  covenant  are/wr?//,  compared  with  tlie  obiig-atioiif. 


t       4^       ] 

.which  arc  upon  thofc  who  are  in  full  communiGn.  ft 
is  granted  that  thev  are  told  otherwile;  yet  inafmuch 
as  they  are  admitt-d  out  of  indulgence  to  fuch  an  o- 
pinion,  they  will  think  fo,  and  it  is  moft  manifeftthat 
a  great  part  feel  fo.. 

2dly.  Another  evil  attendant  on  the  praclice  of 
owning  the  covenant,  is,  tha  unkind  influence  it  has  oji 
thcpeifon  who  is  admitted  to  privileges  in  that  way. 

It  is  done,  I  grant,  out  of  real  kindnefs  to  the  fcru- 
pulous  perfon  ;  but  it  is  not  kind  in  its  influence  ref- 
pedtirig  hi  in.  It  rather  confirms  his  fcruple  ;  for  the 
practice  looks  as  if  the  church  thought  it  a  juft  one* 
To  fay  the  leait,  by  indulging  the  fcruple,  the  fcrupu- 
lous  are  put  to  rrft  ;  and  they  commonly  reft  very  eafy 
without  feekuig  any  thing  further.  It  is  like  fewing 
pillows  under  mens  arm-hoics  ;  and  it  removes  fome 
fpecial  incentives,  they  would  have  otherwife  had  to 
be  affiduous,  in  making  their  way  clear  to  an  attendance 
upon  tiie  other  ordinance  and  inrtitution. 

3dly.  The  pracdce  of  owning  the  covenant  has  a 
bad  influence,  not  only  on  the  peribn  who  has  privi- 
leges in  that  way,  but  on  others. 

It  naturally  leads  others  to  think  there  is  a  real  dif- 
ference, in  poiat  of  qualification,  for  the  ordinances 
of  baptifm  and  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  or  iii  other  words, 
it  has  a  natural  tendency  to  train  up  others  in  jufl"  fuch 
a  fcruple  as  it  was  dcligned  to  indulge.  When  others 
fee  there  is  a  real  difference  inpradicei  refpeCling  the 
two  ordinances,  they  will  conclude  that  there  is  a  dif- 
ference as  to  the  requifite  quaHfications iov  them  ;'  and 
thus  the  fcruple  grows  up  with  them.  The  pradlice  is 
the  mother  and  the  nurfe  of  fuch  fcruples. — In  this 
way  it  cmbarralTes  the  minds  of  the  more  ferious,  and 
frightens  them  away  from  Chrift's  table. — They  think 
that  covenanting  with  Gt)d  is  a  moft  folcmn  tranfac- 
tion,  and  if  partaking  of  the  facramcnc  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  be  ftiU  morefolemn,  as  this  praclice  teaches, 
they  will  fay  as  St.  Paul  did  in  another  cafe,  "  Who  is 
lufhcicnt:  for  thefe  things  ?" — As  ihepradice  doesn^u 


[       49       ] 

turally  lead  perfons  to  think,  that  there  is  a  real  differ- 
ence in  point  of  qualificarion  for  the  ordinances  of 
baptifm  and  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  fo  they  will  cither 
conclude,thar  it  is  a/;«^//  matter  to  covenant  with  God ; 
or  if  they  retain  proper  conceptions  of  covenanting, 
they  will  ht  frightried  away  from  Chrift's  table,  as  too 
facred  for  partially  fanAified  creatures  to  approach. 
It  almoft  necelTarily  leads  to  one  or  the  other  of  thefe 
extremes.     Again, 

The  pradlice  of  owning  the  covenant,  naturally 
leads  people  to  make  an  idol  of  baptifm  ;  and  to  con- 
lider  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  of  /mall 
confequence  ;  for  as  mankind  in  that  pradice  are  ex- 
hibiting'a  great  zeal  for  baptifm,  and  fhow  but  little 
or  no  inclination  to  enjoy  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  ;  fo  it  is  natural  for  young  people,  who  are 
trained  up  under  it,  to  conclude,  that  it  m.uft  be  be- 
caufc  baptifm  is  of  fo  much  greater  importance  than 
the  other  ordinances.  Llence  it  is,  that  fo  many  feel 
very  uneafy  till  their  children  are  baptifed,  and  fo  eafy 
in  negledling,  all  their  days,  the  memorial  of  Chrift's 
death. 

Thefe  and  a  variety  of  other  evil  confequences  which 
might  be  mentioned,  of  which  the  pradticc  of  owning 
the  covenant  is  productive,  fhow  tlie  importance  of 
its  being  abolifhed.         I  will  only  add, 

1 1  thly.  That  ihtgood  confequences  attending  a  con- 
trary pradice,  fhow  the  importance  of  abolifhing  the 
pradice  of  owning  the  covenant. 

I  am  very  fenfible,  that  many  difagreeable  confe- 
quences may  follow  an  attempt  to  aboLfh  the  pradice 
of  owning  the  covenant,  through  an  unjuft  attach- 
ment to  it,  and  the  unreafonable  prejudice  of  men  in 
its  favor.  I  am  alfo,  fenfible,  that  it  has  been  laid, 
that  if  none  may  be  admitted  to  the  privilege  of  bap- 
tifm, excepting  fuch  as  engage  an  attendance  upon  all 
inftituted  duties,  without  excepting  an  attendance  up- 
on the  Lord's  Supper,  feveral  bad  confequences  will 
enfue  ;  fuch  as  many  children  going  unbaptifed  j 
G 


[      5^      ] 

ru riling  on  unprepared  to  the  communion  table,  &6 
l>ur  thcfc  have  been  already  Ihown  to  be  unnatural 
confequen^es,  if  tiiey  Ihould  take  place.  As  they 
have  already  been  conlidcredj  I  ihall  refer  you  to  whac 
hath  been  faid  refpcdling  them  ;  and  proceed  to  point 
oat  feveral  very  important  things  which  would  attend 
a  practice  that  admits  no  adults  to  the  privilege  of 
baptifm,  who  do  not  engage  an  attendance  upon  all 
inltitutions.     And, 

ifl.  Such  a  pradlice  would  make  a  tmion  ^nd  onejiefs 
among  profelicd  Chriftians. 

They  would  then  have  one  faithy  07?^  Lord/  and  one 
baptifm  :  They  would  in  all  rcfpedis- be  oney3.s  to  vifi- 
ble  Chriiiianity  ;  which  would  make  a  church  appear 
like  the  church  in  the  apoftles  days,  as  they  would  then 
continue  Jieclf'aJUy  m  the  apoftles  dodlrines,-  and  in 
breaking  of  bread  and  iwp-ayersi 

2dly.  If  none  were  admitted  to  bapfifm  excepting 
fuch  as  engage  to  attend  upon  all  ordinances,  the  hon~ 
or  of  all  ordinances  would  be  equally  maintained. 

While  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  made 
ro  gi ve  way  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm,  the  former 
will  be  confidered  as  of  but  little  importance  when 
coi'npared  v/ith  tbe  latter  :  but  if  none  were  admitted 
to  baptifm,  excepting  fuch  as  attend  upon  all  ordi- 
nances, the  importance  of  all  would  be  vindicated 
and  maintained  -  the  rights  of  the  Lord's  table  and 
Chr-ift's  authority  in  all  his  inftitutions  would  be  fup^ 
piVi'ted,-  A  church  would  then  Ipeak  the  fame  lan^ 
gUagQ  with  Chrift  in  his  ordinances,  both  in  word  and 
pracMce. 

3dly.  If  none  fliould  be  admitted  lo  baptifm,  I 
mean  adults,  excepting  fuch  as  engage  to  attend  upon 
all  ordinances,  good  purpofes  would  be  anfwered,  ref- 
pcci:ing  fuch  as  may  be  under  fcruples. 

It  would  make  them /)^?///W  in  their  endeavors  to 
Remove  their  fcruples.  If  we  iliould  labor  to  remove^ 
inllead  of  indulging  fcruples,  we  fhould  ftand  a  good 
chance  t<?  obliterate  them^  and  fo  to  help  on  the  fcru^ 


C    .5«       ] 

pdous  perfon  to  attend,  with  comfort  and  fatisfadtion, 
upon  his  whole  duty  :  But  if  we  fhould  once  indulge 
it,  his  fcruple,  if  any  thing,  would  be  more  confirmed  ; 
at  leaft,  it  would  not  be  removed,  and  the  befl  oppor- 
tunity for  removing  it  would  be  over  and  pall. 
Once  more, 

4thly.  If  none  were  admitted  to  baptifm,  excepting 
fuch  as  attend  upon  all  ordinances,  jt  would  anfwcr 
kind  purpofes  to  mankind  in  general. 

It  would  lead  all  to  fee  the  importance  of  all  ordi- 
nances :  It  would  guard  them  againfl  unjuil  fcruplcs  ; 
for  if  they  fliould  fee  no  diitindion  among  ordinances 
in  practice,  they  would  not  fufp.etl  any  difference,  in 
point  of  qualification,  for  fpecial  ordinances.  It  would 
alfo  lead  people  to  fse  the  importance  of  being  prepar- 
ed and  qualified  for  an  early  attendance  upon  the 
Lord's  Supper,  as  well  as  baptifm. 

Thus  the  tendency  of  a  pradice  which  admits  none 
to  baptifm,  excepting  fuch  as  attend  upon  all  ordi^ 
nances  and  live  in  the  practice  of  all  Chriflian  duties, 
is  fuch,  as  I  apprehend  would  fufliciently  jufiify  the 
abolition  of  the  pradcice  of  owning  the  covenant. 

We  have  now  taken  a  particular  view  of  the  nature 
and  tendency  of  the  pradice  of  owning  the  covenant. 
We  have  confidered  the  foundation  on  which  ii  refls, 
and  the  reafons  for  its  exclulion.  It  has,  I  apprehend, 
been  fhiown,  that  it  w^as  not  /;/  being  in  the  apoflles 
days  :  That  it  is  contrary  to  the  exprcjs  will  of  God, 
as  manifefled  to  his  church  under  the  former  difpen- 
fation:  That  it  is  contrary  to  theyp/r/V  and  plain  im- 
port of  the  commilJion  which  Chrift  gave  his  apoftles, 
when  he  fent  them  forth  to  baptife  :  That  it  is  oppojed 
to  the  'will  of  Chrifl:,  as  exprelfcd  in  the  inftitution  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  :  That  it  fets  up  an  unwarrantable 
dijlin^ion  between  the  ordinances  of  baptifm  and  the 
Lord's  Supper  :  That  it  is  utterly  unnecejjary  upon 
go/pel  principles  :  That  it  makes  an  iinzvarrantable  dif- 
tin£iion  among  profefTed  Chriftians  :  That  the  princi- 
ple on  which  it  ig  built  and  grounded,  is  fuch^  as  that 


[      52      ] 

there  can,  confiftently,  be  noJhpJJjorl  of  an  indulgence  of 
all  fcmples,  and  an  exemption  from  the  pra^ice  of  all 
Cbrlpan  duties,  fo-  far  as  any  fcruples  may  happen  to 
arife  about  them  :  That  it  is  of  a  bad  and  pernicious 
tendency,  both  refpecling  fuch  as  are  indulged  and 
others.  Finally,  it  has  been  obferved,  that  the  tenden- 
cy  of  2i  contrary pra5f ice  is  fuch,  7i%  fu.lly  jujlifies  and  war^ 
rants  the  aholilion  and  exclufion  of  the  practice  of  own- 
ing the  covenant.  The  matter,  my  hearers,  is  now 
fubmitted  to  your  impartial  confideration  ;  and  I 
hope  you  will  not  fail  to  fearch  the fcriptu res  diligent- 
ly, to  fee  if  thmgs  are  fo  ;  and  may  the  Father  of 
i^iGHTS  dired  you  into  a  right  underftanding  of  them. 
IMPROVEMENT. 

All  that  will  be  offered,  by  way  of  improvement, 
will  be  in  two  particulars.  And> 

I'irjl,  What  has  been  faid  leads  us  to  fee  the  unrea- 
fonablc  nature  of  many  things,  that  have  been  faid  a- 
gainft  that  pradice  which  admits  none  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptifm,  who  live  in  an  habitual  negledl  of  any  pub- 
lic ordinance  and  inftkution. 

Many  thmgs  have  been  f  lid,  which  are  highly  cal- 
culated to  raife  popular  clamor  and  uncalinefs.  It 
has  been  laid,  that  fuch  a  pradice,  debars  perfons  of 
baptil'm,  cafts  ,theni  out  of  covenant,  is  hard^  crnely^c. 
But  what  has  been  faid,  leads  fuch  to  fee  that  pcrfon? 
call:  themfelves  out  of  covenant,  by  wot  keeping  cove- 
nant with  God,  or  not  living  in  the  prad:ife  of  cove- 
nant duties.  If  there  be  any  fault,  it  is  in  themfelves. 
If  there  be  any  cruelly  -SiW^  fvcrily  in  the  cafe,  it  is  in 
the  injiitution,  and  not  in  thofewho  practice  according 
to  it.  The  charge  therefore  terminates  againft  God  ; 
/or  it  has  been  {l"»ov*'n,  that  his  inftitution  admits  none 
to  baptifm,  excepting  iiich  Vvho  are  in  covenant  with 
him  ;  or  do  engage  to  live  in  the  praflicc  of  covenant 
duties  ;  if,  therefore,  there  be  any  cruelty  or  feverity 
in  not  admitting  fuch  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm, 
who  withhold  their  attendance  on  covenant  duties,  it 
is  owing  to  the  inftitution.     But  how  unjuft  and  un- 


r   53   ] 

rcafonable  is  the  out-cry,  that  it  is  cruel  and  fevere  tc 
withhold  baptifm  from  fuch  who  withhold  their  at- 
tendance upon  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 
What  has  been  faid  leads  us  to  fee  that  it  is  an  ad;  of 
real  kindnefs  to  them  and  to  all  around.  Indulgence 
may  be  fweet  to  perfons,  but  it  is  ao  a6l  of  kindnefs  to 
confirm  their  fcruples  and  to  few  pillows  under  their 
arm  holes  that  they  may  feel  eafy  in  a  negled:  of  plain 
gofpel  inftitutions  :  No,  it  is  the  worft  thing  that  can 
be  done  for  them,  and  its  evil  influence  extends  to 
multitudes  around  them. 

And  what  has  been  faid  leads  us  to  fee,  that  if  any 
fliould  fuffer  their  children  to  go  unbaptifed,  becaufe 
they  cannot  obtain  baptifm,  uniefs  they  attend  upon 
the  memorial  of  Chrifl's  death,  they  would  a(5t  a  per- 
fedlly  unrcafonable  part ;  for  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a 
reafonable  inftitution,  and  it  is  a  duty  of  the  covenant. 
The  apoftlcs  admitted  perfons  to  baptifm  on  no  other 
terms.  It  becomes  men  to  be  very  cautious  how  they 
jaife  a  clamour  againft  fuch  a»prad:ice,  by  calling  it 
hard  and  cruel^fmce  it  terminates  againft  theconftitu- 
tion  of  heaven,  and  is  of  equal  force  againft  the  prac« 
tice  of  the  apoftles. 

Secondly.  What  has  been  faid  will  be  further  im- 
pioved,  in  fome  particular  addrefies. 

I  ft.     To  the  church  in  general. 

My  Brethren,  you  have  now  had  the  pra(n:ice  of 
owning  the  covenant  laid  open  to  you,  both  as  to  the 
nature  of  it  and  its  confequenccs  :  And  ufing  that  im- 
partiality which  it  becomes  you  to  exercife,  m.uft  you 
not  determine,  that  its  confequenccs  are  bad — that  it 
llands  oppofed  to  the  will  of  Chrift  and  the  rights  of 
his  table — that  it  is  entirely  unneceilary  upon  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  gofpel  ^  Are  not  the  qualifications  for 
baptifm  and  the  Lord's  Supper  one  and  the  fame  .'*  If 
there  be  'd/cruple  in  the  mind  of  any  one,  is  there  pre- 
cept or  example  in  the  Bible  for  difpenfing  with  an 
attendance  on  plain  gofpel  inftitutions  in  a  w^ay  of 
condefcenfton  to  it  ?     Moreover,  is  not  the  pracl;ice 


[       54       3 

of  owning  the  covenant  oppofed  to  the  practice  of  the 
aportles,  whofe  difciples  continued,  fledHillly,  in  Ireak^ 
ing  of  bread,  as  well  as  in  the  apoftles  dodrines  and  in 
prayers  ?  And,  is  it  not  oppofed  to  the  coranrjiflioii 
which  Chrift  gave  to  the  apoftles  ?  If  thele  things 
do  appear  to  you,  docs  not  the  honor  of  Chriil  and  the 
welfare  of  Zion  demand,  that  a  period  be  put  to  the 
pradice  ?  As  you  are  profeiTed  friends  of  Chrift  and 
his  caufe,  you  are  bound  to  think  on  thefe  things,  and 
to  ad  as  Chrift  and  the  welfare  of  his  church  demand. 

2dly.  I  would  particularly  addrefs  fuch  as  are  in 
^  covenant  ftanding,  and  yet  withhold  their  attendance 
on  the  memorial  of  Chrift's  death. 

I  have  now  conftdered  the  ftanding  you  are  in,  with 
freedom  and  impartiality  ;  and  have  fliown,  I  truft, 
that  it  is  wholly  unfcriptural  ;  yet  I  do  not  conftder 
you  as  in  it  with  a  view  of  its  unfcriptural  nature,  or 
pernicious  confequences  :  I  conftder  you  as  having 
aded  honejllyy  yet  erroneonfly.  You  will  not  thinkthat 
I  am  your  enemy,  becaufe  I  have  told  you  the  truth. 
I  can  truly  fay  concerning  you,  as  St.  Paul  faid  con^ 
■cerning  his  brethren,  the  jews,  "My  heart's  defire 
and  prayer  to  God  for  you  is,  that  ye  may  be  favcd." 
You  will  fufter  mc  further,  with  all  the  earneftnefs  and 
importunity  which  becometh  one  who  hath  the  wel- 
fare of  your  ibuls  in  charge,  to  urge  you  to  conftder, 
whether  the  ftanding  you  are  in  be  not  unfcriptural — '• 
whether  it  does  not  become  the  profefled  difciples  of 
Jefus  Chrift  to  keep  all  his  commandments  ?  '*  If  ye 
love  me,  keep  my  commandments,"  fays  Chrift.  You 
profcfsto  call  Chrift  your  Lord  and  Mafter  :  But  fays 
Chrift,  "  Why  call  ye  me  Lord,  Lordy  find  do  not  the 
things  zvhich  I  fay  f!"  This  demand  of  our  Saviour's 
is  diredly  to  your  ca.fe  ;  and  I  entreat  you  to  conftder, 
whether  you  can  ever  anfwer  for  your  negled  to  Chrift 
— whether  you  are  not  called  upon  to  quit  your  pre- 
fent  ftanding  ;  and  as  you  profefs  to  call  Chrift,  LoRii^ 
whether  you  are  not  bound  to  do  as  he  hath  command- 
td  you  ? 


[      55      J 

Lfet  tvhat  has  been  faid  be  impartially confidefed  by 
you,  and  then  afk  your  own  confciences,  whether  you 
ought  to  pcrfift  any  longei  in  a  practice,  fo  evidently 
contrary  to  the  practice  ot  the  apolUes  ? 

3dly.  I  will  olier  a  few  words  in  an  addrefs  to  fuch 
as  have  not,  as  yet,  dedicated  their  children  to  God 
in  babtifm. 

The  obligations  upon  you  to  dedicate  your  children 
to  God  in  baptifm,  are  great  and  indifpenfible  :  But 
then  it  is  your  duty  to  dedicate  them  .in  the  manner 
that  God  has  direcled  you.  Why  do  you  delay  and 
neglecT:  in  fo  important  a  duty  ?  Is  it  becaufe  you  may 
not  proceed  in  it  unlefs  you  attend  upon  all  the  duties 
of  the  covenant  v/ithout  excepting  theinftitutionofthe 
Lord's  Supper  ?  What  right  have  you  to  that  feal  of 
the  covenant,  fhort  of  your  engaging  to  do  covenant 
duties  ?  A  Jew  might  not  be  acknow  ledged  as  having 
a  Handing  in  the  covenant,  who  would  live  in  an  ha- 
bitual ncgled:  of  a  plain  covenant  duty.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  the  apoftles  baptifed  on  any  other  terms  ; 
Why  then  fliould  you  defire  it  ?  You  will  fay  that  you 
fcruple  your  qualifications  for  an  attendance  upon  the; 
ordinance  of  theLord'sSupper;  but  why  more  than  your 
qualifications  for  covenantmg  ?  Is  a  perfon  qualified  to 
engage  to  do  the  duties  of  the  covenant,  and  yet  not 
qualified  adually  to  do  them  ? — You  cannot  take  up- 
on you  the  whole  covenant,  unlefs  you  engage  to  at- 
tend upon  the  memorial  of  Chriit's  death  :  for  that  is 
a  covenant  duty.  Befidcs,  would  you  have  pkiin  gofpel 
inftitutions  fet  afide  in  condefcenfion  to  your  fcrupks? 
Where  is  the  precept,  where  is  the  example  for  fuch 
condefcenfion  ?  It  is  not  to  be  found  in  your  Bibles. 
Moreover,  can  you  anfw  er  your  negledt  to  Chrift  } — • 
Will  it  do  (when  he  comes  to  enquire  of  you  the  oc- 
cafion  of  your  negled)  for  you  to  fay,  we  might  not 
receive  the  ordinance  unlefs  we  had  engaged  an  at- 
tendance upon-the  inftituted  memorial  of  thy  death  I 
Will  you  have  a  face  to  urge  that,  as  an  unreafonable 
term  !  Hcwfoever  you  may  now  view  the  matter,  you 


C      56      ]       -^ 

•  :.n  never  find  an  excufe  which  will  juftify  your  nc- 
gle<fl  from  that  quarter.  I  am  far  from  defiring  to  a- 
bridge  you  of  one  privilege :  My  duty  and  intereft 
both  invite  me  to  do  every  thing  for  you,  which  is 
conliftent  with  that  refped  I  always  ought  to  have  for 
divine  inftitutions.  I  urge  it  upon  you,  to  confider, 
what  hath  been  faid  with  impartiality,  and  compare 
it  with  the  word  of  God  ;  and  then  afk  your  own  con- 
fciences,  whether  there  is  not  the  greateft  probability, 
if  not  full  evidence,  that  the  pradice  of  owmng  the 
coveHant  is  not  of  divine  original. 

CONCLUSION. 

LET  one  and  all  be  difpofed  to  receive  and  em- 
brace the  light,  which  divme  revelation  fets  before 
you.  There  is  a  day  of  folemn  account  approaching, 
wherein  every  one  will  be  judged  according  to  the^(?7- 
fel.  If,  therefore,  wliat  hath  been  faid  be  agreeable 
lo  the  fcriptures  (which  appears  to  me,  ai'ter  the  moll 
painful  examination,  to  be  really  the  cafe}  no  preju- 
dices ought  to  rejed  it.  And,  I  cannot  biit  think, 
that  what  hath  been  faid,  mull:  recommend  itfelf  to  every 
man's  confcience,  as  inculcating  a  plan  agreeable  to 
what  the  church  was  ufed  to  of  old  ; — a  plan,  agreea- 
ble to  what  the  church  was  ufed  to  in  the  -apollles 
days  ? — and  a  plan  calculated  to  maintain  the  honor 
and  authority  of  Chrift, — to  excite  and  quickea  to  all 
duty,  and  to  build  up  the  church  of  Chriil  in  the  world 
in  unity.  ^ 

May  the  Father  of  Lights  accompany  diyinc 
truth  with  his  blefling,  and  grant  that  we  may  build 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  apofliles  and  prophets,  Je- 
fus  Chiiithimlelf  being  the  chief  corner-done  :  And 
in  HIM  may  the  whole  building,  being  fitly  fram- 
ed together,  grow  up  into  an  holy  Temple  in  the 
Lord. Amen, 


